Morgan v. Zimmer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Morgan v. Zimmer

120 A.D. 672, 105 N.Y.S. 914, 1907 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1286

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 25, 1907

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 120 A.D. 672 (Morgan v. Zimmer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Morgan v. Zimmer, 120 A.D. 672, 105 N.Y.S. 914, 1907 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1286 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

Chester, J.:

The defendant had done everything that the law required of him to perfect his appeal to the County Court from the judgment of the Justice’s Court, and the justice had failed to make and file his return within the time required by law. 'Nothing appears to show that the defendant was at fault in not compelling a.return to be filed in time to get the case on that calendar. An action is deemed • an action at issue in the appellate court after the expiration of ten days from the day of filing the justice’s return (Code Civ. Proc. § 3071), and it is only after the action is at issue that a party may [674]*674serve á notice of trial and file with the- clerk a note of issue. The return not having been filed, the case was not at issue, and was, therefore, not properly on the calendar of the County Court. The defendant had served no notice of trial,,and filed no note of issue, • and had in no way waived his right to insist upon having the case stricken from the calendar; nor was the plaintiff in any position to ask the court to impose-witnesses’ fees- upon the' defendant as a con-■dition for putting the case over the term, for he had improperly put it upon the calendar. '

The order should he reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. -

AlFconcurred.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

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

Chester, J.:

The defendant had done everything that the law required of him to perfect his appeal to the County Court from the judgment of the Justice’s Court, and the justice had failed to make and file his return within the time required by law. 'Nothing appears to show that the defendant was at fault in not compelling a.return to be filed in time to get the case on that calendar. An action is deemed • an action at issue in the appellate court after the expiration of ten days from the day of filing the justice’s return (Code Civ. Proc. § 3071), and it is only after the action is at issue that a party may [674]*674serve á notice of trial and file with the- clerk a note of issue. The return not having been filed, the case was not at issue, and was, therefore, not properly on the calendar of the County Court. The defendant had served no notice of trial,,and filed no note of issue, • and had in no way waived his right to insist upon having the case stricken from the calendar; nor was the plaintiff in any position to ask the court to impose-witnesses’ fees- upon the' defendant as a con-■dition for putting the case over the term, for he had improperly put it upon the calendar. '

The order should he reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. -

AlFconcurred.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 A.D. 672, 105 N.Y.S. 914, 1907 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1286, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morgan-v-zimmer-nyappdiv-1907.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack