Hyperlawhypertext legal database Lee v. Timken 88 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 81

← Cases

Lee v. Timken

88 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 81 Court N.Y. Gen. Term English

Judges Present — Yan Brunt, P. J., O’Brien and Follett, J"J.

Contents

Majority

p. 81
Emiline Lee, Appellant, v. Mary A. Timken, Respondent.

Headnote

Order on a demurrer, not wpjpealable.
An order sustaining or overruling a demurrer is not appealable; the appeal must he from the judgment.
Appeal by the plaintiff, Emiline Lee, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered
p. 82
in the office of the cleric of the county of New York on the 15th day of May, 1894, sustaining the defendant’s demurrer to the complaint.
V. W. Kingsley, for the appellant..
Geo. K. Mott, for the respondent.

As we have had occasion to point out in the case of Sheffield v. Robinson (decided herewith[1] ), an order sustaining or overruling a demurrer is not appealable; the appeal must be from the judgment.

Appeal accordingly dismissed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Present — Yan Brunt, P. J., O’Brien and Follett, J"J.

Appeal dismissed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

* See Sheffield v. Murray, Impleaded, etc. ( 80 Hun, 555 ).