Monroe-Miller Co. v. Stokes

29 N.Y.S. 718, 9 Misc. 170, 60 N.Y. St. Rep. 642
New York Court of Common Pleas·Decided June 27, 1894·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

BISCHOFF, J.

The answer, besides denying the alleged conversion, interposed a counterclaim for rent. A judgment at special term, sustaining the demurrer to the counterclaim, was affirmed at general term of the court below, and from the judgment of affirmance defendant has attempted to appeal to this court. The remaining issues tendered by the pleadings are untried, and that judgments of the character alluded to are severally interlocutory was ruled in Biershenk v. Stokes (Com. Pl. N. Y.) 18 N. Y. Supp. 854. An appeal to this court from a judgment of the city court of New York may be taken only when the judgment is final and was rendered upon an appeal to the general term. Code Civ. Proc. § 3191, subd. 1. The appeal must be dismissed, with costs.

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

Monroe-Miller Co. v. Stokes, 29 N.Y.S. 718, 9 Misc. 170, 60 N.Y. St. Rep. 642 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1894).

29 N.Y.S. 718 (Monroe-Miller Co. v. Stokes) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Levy v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.
34 Misc. 518 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1901)