Schell v. . Devlin
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from order of the General Term of the Supreme Court, in the first judicial department, affirming an order of Special Term, which substituted Thomas A. Rodman and others, composing the firm of Hodman & Adams, in place of the plaintiff above named herein. The facts appear sufficiently in the opinion. It is only when the order is in favor of and accepted by the appellant, or that by means of it he gains some substantial benefit, that an appeal is waived.
Read the full summary
Appeal from order of the General Term of the Supreme Court, in the first judicial department, affirming an order of Special Term, which substituted Thomas A. Rodman and others, composing the firm of Hodman & Adams, in place of the plaintiff above named herein. The facts appear sufficiently in the opinion. It is only when the order is in favor of and accepted by the appellant, or that by means of it he gains some substantial benefit, that an appeal is waived. (Benkard v. Babcock, 27 How. Pr. 391; Wallace v. Castle et al., 68 N. Y. 375.) The order of theG-eneral Term affirming the order of…
1Opinion of the CourtAndrews, J.
The motion for substitution was made upon the affidavit of Thomas U. Rodman, and upon the pleadings, judgment and proceedings in the action, showing that Rod-man and Adams, after the commencement of the action, and• before the recovery of judgment therein, became the owners of the claim upon which the action was brought by written assignment from the original plaintiff for their own ~tise, and that `they have ever since been the absolute owners thereof, and that intermediate the assignment to them and the recovery of the judgment, the original plaintiff was adjudged a bankrupt, and had…
2Cited by3 opinions
- People v. . FlackNew York Court of Appeals · 1915
- Campbell v. FriedlanderAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1900
- Bennett v. ThompsonNew York Supreme Court · 1894