Wilson v. . Palmer
New York Court of Appeals
Motion to dismiss appeal on the ground, among others, that the appeal was not taken and perfected in time. The facts appear in the opinion. The appeal from the judgment of the General Term was not perfected within the time required by law. (Code of Civil Procedure, § 1325; Code of Procedure, § 334; Kelsey v. Campbell, 14 Abb., 368.) The appeal was perfected in time.
Read the full summary
Motion to dismiss appeal on the ground, among others, that the appeal was not taken and perfected in time. The facts appear in the opinion. The appeal from the judgment of the General Term was not perfected within the time required by law. (Code of Civil Procedure, § 1325; Code of Procedure, § 334; Kelsey v. Campbell, 14 Abb., 368.) The appeal was perfected in time. (Old Code, § 331; New Code, § 1325; Champion v. Plymouth Cong’l Soc., 42 Barb., 441; Sherman v. Wells, 14 How., 522.) It was not necessary that a copy of the undertaking should be served with the notice of appeal. (Ryan v. Waull,…
1Per curiam
The only judgment entered in this action after the decision of the General Term was entered August 3, 1877, and notice thereof was given on the same day. That was a judgment of affirmance and for $96.99 costs. The notice of appeal and the undertaking describe that judgment, and no other. Ho other judgment was ever entered, and it does not appear that that judgment was ever canceled, or actually modified. It is true that the taxation of costs was corrected, by order of August 30, 1877, granted on motion for re-taxation by striking out the small sum of $1.25. The undertaking oil appeal was not…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Lemmons v. HuberOregon Supreme Court · 1904
- In the Matter of BeckwithNew York Court of Appeals · 1882
- Wakefield v. American Surety Co.New York Court of Common Pleas · 1885
- Steele v. GormanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1924
- Yates v. . BurchNew York Court of Appeals · 1882
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.