Struppman v. Muller

11 Jones & S. 38
CourtThe Superior Court of New York City
DecidedJune 25, 1877
StatusPublished

This text of 11 Jones & S. 38 (Struppman v. Muller) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of New York City primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Struppman v. Muller, 11 Jones & S. 38 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1877).

Opinion

By the Court.—Freedman, J.

—Upon proof that the appeals of the infant defendants Muller, from the orders of December 22, 1876, had been withdrawn pursuant to a stipulation entered into by the parties to said appeals, the general term, on February 23, 1877, granted an order dismissing said appeals without costs, and such order was duly entered.

This having been done, another party to the action, who had no interest in said appeals, not having in fact appealed, has no right to procure, at a subsequent general term, an order of affirmance of the orders of December 22, 1876, by default. The party appellant or the parties appellants .are the only parties who can move the court in favor of the appeal.

The order of March 5, 1877, should be vacated and set aside.

Sedgwick and Speir, JJ., concurred.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
11 Jones & S. 38, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/struppman-v-muller-nysuperctnyc-1877.