Landon v. Townshend

18 N.Y.S. 552, 45 N.Y. St. Rep. 753, 63 Hun 632
New York Supreme Court·Decided March 31, 1892·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

It would appear that the defendant, as matter of right, was entitled to the order in question. The only valid judgment which was rendered in the progress of the trial was the last judgment which had been affirmed by the court of appeals, and, as a matter of right, the defendants were entitled to have this judgment vacated, and a new trial ordered, upon the terms prescribed by the Code.1 Three years not having elapsed from the time of the entry of this judgment, it was immaterial what the defendants did in the mean time in respect to appeals or other proceedings in reference to said judgment. There seems to be therefore no reason for disturbing the order appealed from, and the same should be affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.

Footnotes

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

Landon v. Townshend, 18 N.Y.S. 552, 45 N.Y. St. Rep. 753, 63 Hun 632 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1892).

18 N.Y.S. 552 (Landon v. Townshend) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Iron Silver Min. Co. v. Campbell
61 F. 932 (Eighth Circuit, 1894)
Campbell v. Iron Silver Min. Co.
56 F. 133 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Colorado, 1893)