Hyperlawhypertext legal database Heins v. Manhattan Railway Co. 28 N.Y.S. 780

← Cases

Heins v. Manhattan Railway Co.

28 N.Y.S. 780 Court N.Y. Super. Ct. Decision date 1894-05-07 English

Delivered by *781 FREEDMAN, J.

Contents

Majority

p. 780
HEINS v. MANHATTAN RY. CO. et al.
(Superior Court of New York City, General Term.
May 7, 1894.)

Headnote

Appeal—Striking Cause prom Calendar.
When an order has been entered declaring a case abandoned by appellant, and he takes no step to be relieved from the order, or to have the appeal heard on the" judgment roll alone, respondent’s motion to strike the cause from the calendar will be granted.
Action by John D. Heins against the Manhattan Railway Company and another. There was a judgment in favor of plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Plaintiff now moves to strike cause from the calendar, and for judgment, pursuant to rule 4 of the special rules of the superior court. Granted.
Argued before SEDGWICK, C. J., and FREEDMAN and McADAM, JJ.
William Allan, for plaintiff.
Root & Clarke, for defendants.

It was the duty oí the appellants to procure the order for the filing of the case after its settlement, on 1893, and to attend to the filing. No sufficient reason has been given why the appellants neglected their duty in this respect. The case having been declared abandoned by an order duly made, entered, and served, and the appellants having taken no steps to be relieved from this order, nor any step to bring the appeal before the general term upon the judgment roll alone, the respondent’s motion should be granted, with costs. All concur.