Legal Opinion
Dusch v. Dusch
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided May 3, 1939PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Orders affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Memorandum: We affirm the order of May 11,1938, on the ground that no order was made or even orally directed to be entered granting a reference to the official referee. Therefore, the court could not supply by an order entered nunc pro tunc a jurisdictional prerequisite to the trial which had never in fact existed. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 127; Hindermann v. Hindermann, 245 App. Div. 246; Merrick v. Merrick, 266 N. Y. 120; Sobel v. Sobel, 234 App. Div. 98.) The orders of May 27, 1938, and June 30, 1938, were made in the exercise of…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Merrick v. MerrickNew York Court of Appeals · 1934
- Sobel v. SobelAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1931
- Hindermann v. HindermannAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1935
- Dusch v. DuschNew York Supreme Court · 1938
3Cited by3 opinions
- Daine v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1948
- Atlas Tile & Marble Works, Inc. v. Paprin Construction Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1974
- Gossin v. GossinNew York Supreme Court · 1946