Majority
p. 356James W. Pinchot, Respondent, v. The New York Elevated Railroad Company and The Manhattan Railway Company, Appellants.
Headnote
Appeal from, an order refusing to resettle a former one— the question as to the propriety of such prior order is not presented.An appeal from an order denying a motion to resettle a former order, by modifying the terms imposed thereby, does not raise the question whether such terms were proper, where no appeal is taken from the original order.
Appeal by the defendants, The New York Elevated Railroad Company and another, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 27th day of February, 1900, as denies defendants’ motion to resettle the order of February 14, 1900, by modifying the terms therein imposed.
Arthur O. Townsend,, for the appellants.
Frederick C. McLaughin, for the respondent.
The appeal herein is “ from so much of the .order * * * entered * * * on the 27th day of February, 1900, as denies defendants’ motion to resettle the order of February 14th, 1900, by modifying the terms therein imposed.”
We assume that what the defendant seeks is a modification of the terms imposed by the original order, but no appeal is taken therefrom, and we do not think that this question can be raised by appeal from so much of a subsequent order as denies the motion for a resettlement of the original order.
The appeal accordingly should be dismissed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
Present —Van Brunt, P. J., Barrett, Rumsey, O’Brien and Ingraham, JJ.
Appeal dismissed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.