Grayrock Land Co. v. Wolff — 120 N.Y.S. 89

Majority

p. 89

GRAYROCK LAND CO. v. WOLFF.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

December 22, 1909.)

Headnote

Appeal and Error (§ 657*)—Record—Corrections.

Where the exhibits submitted on appeal did not include the record of the proceedings in which a dispossess warrant was issued, which was introduced in evidence on the trial, and appellant claimed that the warrant was void because the proceedings were not conducted in accordance with the Code, the record will be returned, that appellant may have an opportunity to correct the same.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 2830-2833; Dec. Dig. § 657.*]

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, First District.

Action by the Grayrock Land Company against Harris Wolff. From a judgment for plaintiff on a verdict rendered by the direction

p. 90

of the court, defendant appeals. Record returned, to enable appellant. fn rnrrprt flip camp

Argued before GIEGERICH, GOFF, and LEHMAN, JJ.

House, Grossman & Vorhaus (Moses H. Grossman and Charles Goldzier, of counsel), for appellant.

Ronald K. Brown (J. Albert Lane, of counsel), for respondent.

The appellant claims that the warrant under which the marshal dispossessed the defendant was void, because the proceedings were not initiated and conducted in accordance with the provi-, sions of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the court had no jurisdiction to issue such a warrant. The record of these proceedings was introduced in evidence at the trial, but does not appear among the exhibits submitted on this appeal.

While it was the duty of the appellant to see that the return was properly prepared, we think that, in the interests of justice, the record should be returned to the files, in order that the appellant may have opportunity to correct the return.