Johnson v. Manning

80 A.D. 368
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 1, 1903·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Jenks, J.:

The petition of the defendant shows that the judgment was recovered upon default. Under the present practice, such an appeal in the first instance would not lie. (Municipal Court Act [Laws [369] of 1902, chap. 580], § 257.) But at the time this action was begun, and when the judgment was obtained, the plaintiff had the right of appeal from an order opening the default and setting aside his judgment. (Beebe v. Nassau Show Case Co., 41 App. Div. 456.) I think that this right was preserved in this case by section 361 of the Municipal Court Act. Without passing upon the various objections raised to the practice of the respondent, I think that there is one which is fatal. Section 1367 of the Consolidation Act* (now repealed by section 364 of the present Municipal Court Act) provides that the order should recite the grounds upon which it was granted. I think that this requirement was substantial for the purpose of apprising the appellate court of the grounds of the decision brought up for review. As the present order fails to recite and to contain the grounds for it, I advise that it be reversed, unless within ten days the respondent procure an amendment to the order.

Bartlett, Woodward, Hirschberg and Hooker, JJ., concurred.

Order of the Municipal Court reversed, in accordance with the opinion of Jerks, J.

Footnotes

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Johnson v. Manning, 80 A.D. 368 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1903).

80 A.D. 368 (Johnson v. Manning) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Dutch v. Parker
51 Misc. 664 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1906)