Richards v. Brice

New York Court of Common Pleas

Richards v. Brice

3 N.Y.S. 947, 16 N.Y. St. Rep. 1018, 1888 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 984

DecidedMay 14, 1888

StatusPublished

This text of 3 N.Y.S. 947 (Richards v. Brice) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Common Pleas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Richards v. Brice, 3 N.Y.S. 947, 16 N.Y. St. Rep. 1018, 1888 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 984 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1888).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The appeal of the general term of the city court was taken from the judgment entered on the order of the special term only, and the notice of appeal did not refer to the order in any way. The general term held the order was neither an “interlocutory judgment, ” nor an “intermediate order, ” within the meaning of sections 1301 and 1316 of the Code; and that it was not requisite to specify it in the notice of appeal in order to review it on appeal. It is unnecessary for us to determine whether this conclusion was right or not, in this case, as the judgment of the special term (see 9 H. Y. St. Rep. 532) was properly affirmed on the merits, for the reasons stated in the opinion of the general term of the city court, (see 13 H. Y. St. Rep. 728;) and therefore the respondent was not injured by the decision in regard to the notice of appeal. The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

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

Per Curiam.

The appeal of the general term of the city court was taken from the judgment entered on the order of the special term only, and the notice of appeal did not refer to the order in any way. The general term held the order was neither an “interlocutory judgment, ” nor an “intermediate order, ” within the meaning of sections 1301 and 1316 of the Code; and that it was not requisite to specify it in the notice of appeal in order to review it on appeal. It is unnecessary for us to determine whether this conclusion was right or not, in this case, as the judgment of the special term (see 9 H. Y. St. Rep. 532) was properly affirmed on the merits, for the reasons stated in the opinion of the general term of the city court, (see 13 H. Y. St. Rep. 728;) and therefore the respondent was not injured by the decision in regard to the notice of appeal. The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 N.Y.S. 947, 16 N.Y. St. Rep. 1018, 1888 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 984, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richards-v-brice-nyctcompl-1888.