Tallman v. Hinman
New York Supreme Court
The summons in this action does not contain the name of any court. It was served on the 31st of October, 1853, and was not accompanied with a complaint. The defendants did not appear, and on the 22d of November, 1853, judgment in the action against the defendants was entered in this court in the clerk’s office of Cayuga county.
Read the full summary
The summons in this action does not contain the name of any court. It was served on the 31st of October, 1853, and was not accompanied with a complaint. The defendants did not appear, and on the 22d of November, 1853, judgment in the action against the defendants was entered in this court in the clerk’s office of Cayuga county. A motion was made by the defendants, at a special term of the court held in Syracuse, before Mr. Justice Pratt, to set aside the judgment, and for leave .to the defendants to appear and answer, for irregularity, in that no court is named in the summons, which motion…
1Opinion of the Court
By the court—T. R. Strong, Justice.
It is objected preliminarily, that the order at special term was not appealable. An appeal could not be taken from it unless the order is within § 349 of the Code. There is no other provision which author*90izes the appeal. That section allows an appeal from an order in the cases specified in its several subdivisions, but it is clear that none of them embrace this order, unless it is the third. The third subdivision is, “ when it involves the merits of the action, or some part thereof, or affects a substantial right.” In St. John agt. West, (4 How. Pr. R. 829,)…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Knebel v. RennieSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1922
- Rahn v. GunnisonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1860
- Hirshbach v. KetchumAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1903
- Bowman v. De PeysterNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1867
- Hirshbach v. KetchumAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1903
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.