Hyperlawhypertext legal database Smith v. Herring-Hall-Marvin Safe Co. 113 N.Y.S. 572

← Cases

Smith v. Herring-Hall-Marvin Safe Co.

113 N.Y.S. 572 Court N.Y. App. Term Decision date 1908-12-16 English

Contents

Majority

p. 572
SMITH v. HERRING-HALL-MARVIN SAFE CO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
December 16, 1908.)

Headnote

Appeal and Error (§ 657[1] )—Record—Remission fob Proper Preparation.
The return will be remitted to the trial court for proper preparation, there being handed up with it a paper containing proposed amendments, some of which, as indicated thereon, were allowed, and some disallowed, and, while each amendment refers to the line and page of the stenographer’s minutes, none of the allowed amendments being inserted in the' minutes, and not a line or page of the minutes being numbered.'
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. § 2830; Dec. Dig. § 657.*]
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, First District.
Action by Abram V. Smith against the Herring-Hall-Marvin Safe Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Return remitted for proper preparation.
Argued before GIEGERICH, HENDRICK, and FORD, JJ.
Edward Kellogg Baird, for appellant.
Ross & Charles, for respondent.

Handed up with the return is a paper containing 17 proposed amendments, some of which are allowed and some disallowed, as appears by the markings on the margin thereof. Each of these amendments refers to the line and page of the stenographer’s minutes. None of the allowed amendments are inserted in the minutes, and not a line or page of the minutes are numbered. This court is not called upon to perform mere clerical work in preparing returns so that they may be examined intelligently.

The return is remitted to the court below so that the same may be properly prepared.