Hyperlawhypertext legal database Struppman v. Muller 43 N.Y. Super. Ct. 38

← Cases

Struppman v. Muller

43 N.Y. Super. Ct. 38 11 Jones & S. 38 Court N.Y. Super. Ct. Decision date 1877-06-25 English

Contents

Majority

p. 38
AUGUSTA STRUPPMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AUGUSTA MULLER, et al., Defendants.
Decided June 25, 1877.

Headnote

APPEAL; WITHDRAWAL AND DISMISSAL OP.
Where an appeal has been dismissed on the consent of the only appellant, no other party to the aetionhas a right to move the general term afterwards for an affirmance of the order or judgment appealed from. The party appellant or the parties appellants are the only parties who can move the court in favor of the appeal.
Before Sedgwick, Speir and Freedman, JJ.
Motion to vacate order.

—Upon proof that the appeals of the infant defendants Muller, from the orders of December 22, 1876, had been withdrawn pursuant to a stipulation entered into by the parties to said appeals, the general term, on February 23, 1877, granted an order dismissing said appeals without costs, and such order was duly entered.

This having been done, another party to the action, who had no interest in said appeals, not having in fact appealed, has no right to procure, at a subsequent general term, an order of affirmance of the orders of December 22, 1876, by default. The party appellant or the parties appellants .are the only parties who can move the court in favor of the appeal.

The order of March 5, 1877, should be vacated and set aside.

Sedgwick and Speir, JJ., concurred.