Lang v. Ropke
The Superior Court of New York City
Ttttk is the case in which judgment was rendered for the defendant in January term, 1852, as reported in 5 Sand. S. C. Rep., p. 363. Application was now made to vacate the judgment and for a new trial under the provisions in the title “ Of ejectment,” in the Revised Statutes. The application had been denied at special term, and was now heard upon an appeal.
Read the full summary
Ttttk is the case in which judgment was rendered for the defendant in January term, 1852, as reported in 5 Sand. S. C. Rep., p. 363. Application was now made to vacate the judgment and for a new trial under the provisions in the title “ Of ejectment,” in the Revised Statutes. The application had been denied at special term, and was now heard upon an appeal. W. 0. Noyes, for Sarah Lang, the appellant, insisted that she had a legal right to demand a new trial, ánd the court no discretion to refuse the application. The words of the Revised Statutes are imperative. They declare that the court in…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court. Oakley, Ch. J.
We are all of opinion that it is so far, from being true that we are bound to grant this application, that we have, in reality, no power to grant it. Rot merely is it not our duty, but it is not within our discretion.
We do not doubt that the general provisions in the Revised Statutes to which we are referred are imperative, in all the cases to which they apply; nor that they are applicable to all actions under the Code, for the recovery of real property; but the proceeding in which this judgment has been rendered, is not an “ action,” and by calling it such, we…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Bay v. GageNew York Supreme Court · 1862
- Chautauqua County Bank v. . WhiteNew York Court of Appeals · 1861
- Thompson v. SherrardNew York Supreme Court · 1861
- Bank of Waterville v. BeltserNew York Supreme Court · 1856
- Holmes v. DavisNew York Supreme Court · 1855
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.