Sperry v. Hillman

13 N.Y.S. 271, 36 N.Y. St. Rep. 52, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1064
New York Court of Common Pleas·Decided February 2, 1891·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff’s appeal should be dismissed. By giving the stipulation and entering the judgment for the amount to which it was reduced by the general term, he waived the right of appeal to this court. A party cannot avail himself of such parts of a judgment as are favorable to him, and appeal from those parts which are not. Grunberg v. Blumenlahl, 66 How. Pr. 62; Alexander v. Alexander, 104 N. Y. 643, 10 N. E. Rep. 37; Harris v. Taylor, 20 Wkly. Dig. 379; Canary v. Knowles, 41 Hun, 542. Defendants’ right of appeal to the general term of this court from the judgment entered, so far as it affirms, as reduced, the former judgment, is beyond ques[272]*272tian. The plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed, with costs, and we direct that the defendants’ appeal be argued at the general term of this court to be held in March next.

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

Sperry v. Hillman, 13 N.Y.S. 271, 36 N.Y. St. Rep. 52, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1064 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1891).

13 N.Y.S. 271 (Sperry v. Hillman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Matson v. Bradbury
10 P.2d 376 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1932)
Male v. Harlan
82 N.W. 179 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1900)