Hyperlawhypertext legal database Heins v. Manhattan Railway Co. 60 N.Y. St. Rep. 60

← Cases

Heins v. Manhattan Railway Co.

60 N.Y. St. Rep. 60 Court N.Y. Super. Ct. Decision date 1894-05-07 English

Delivered by Freedman, J.

Contents

Majority

p. 60
John D. Heins, Resp’t, v. Manhattan Railway Company et al., App’lts.
(New York Superior Court, General Term,
Filed May 7, 1894.)

Headnote

Appeal—Striking cause prom calendar.
Where the appellant takes no step to he relieved from an order declaring his case abandoned, or to have the appeal heard on the judgment roll alone, respondent’s motion to strike the cause from the calender will be granted. ■
Motion to strike cause from the calendar, and for judgment pursuant to rule 4 of the special rules of the superior court.
William Allan, for pl’ff; Root. & Clarice, for def’ts.

It was the duty of the appellants to procure the order for the filing of the case after its settlement, on Jurie 12th, 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.