First National Bank v. Eaton
New York Supreme Court
The notice of appeal in this case was in the following words: “ Please take notice, that the Appellants, Prosper L. and Charles E. Eaton, appeal to the General Term of the Supreme Court, Fourth Department, from the judgment of the Supreme Court herein, entered in the office of the Clerk of the County of Jefferson on the 23d day June, 1894, and appellant intends to bring up for review upon such appeal the interlocutory judgment herein, dated the 23d day of June, 1894, and the…
Read the full summary
The notice of appeal in this case was in the following words: “ Please take notice, that the Appellants, Prosper L. and Charles E. Eaton, appeal to the General Term of the Supreme Court, Fourth Department, from the judgment of the Supreme Court herein, entered in the office of the Clerk of the County of Jefferson on the 23d day June, 1894, and appellant intends to bring up for review upon such appeal the interlocutory judgment herein, dated the 23d day of June, 1894, and the order, dated the 5th day of June, 1894.” The appeal papers, however, contained only the order of June 5, 1894, and no…
1Opinion of the Court
Hardin, P. J.:
As the appeal is from an order sustaining the demurrer to a part of defendants’ answer, and no appeal is taken from any interlocutory judgment, the appeal should be dismissed. (Code, § 1349; Cambridge Valley Nat. Bank v. Lynch, 16 N. Y. 514; Sheffield, v. Robinson, 62 N. Y. St. Repr. 163; S. C., sub nom. Sheffield v. Mur*107ray, 80 Hun, 555; Lee v. Timkin, 62 N. Y. St. Repr. 764; S. C., 81 Hun, 81; Haffey v. Lynch, 68 id. 506.)
Tbe appeal should be dismissed.
Martin and Merwin, JJ., concurred.
Appeal dismissed, without costs. (See 68 Hun, 506.)
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Ridgway v. BaconNew York Supreme Court · 1893
- Lee v. TimkenNew York Supreme Court · 1894