From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Penniman v. LaGrange

Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Mar 1, 1898
23 Misc. 121 (N.Y. App. Term 1898)

Opinion

March, 1898.

William L. Mathot, for appellant.

William J. Walsh, for respondent.


The record before us shows that the trial justice lost jurisdiction of the action by his failure to render judgment within eight days after the trial, and the submission of the case to him for decision. Section 1384 of the Consolidation Act of the City of New York; Bloomer v. Merrill, 1 Daly, 485; Orvis v. Curtiss, 8 Misc. 681; 28 N.Y.S. 728. In the case last cited, which was decided by the General Term of the Court of Common Pleas, it was held that, where this omission appears upon the face of the return, the judgment should be reversed. Such must, therefore, be our disposition of this appeal. The conclusion to which we have come precludes us from reviewing the judgment on the merits. Judgment reversed, with costs.

GILDERSLEEVE and GIEGERICH, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed, with costs.


Summaries of

Penniman v. LaGrange

Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Mar 1, 1898
23 Misc. 121 (N.Y. App. Term 1898)
Case details for

Penniman v. LaGrange

Case Details

Full title:SAMUEL PENNIMAN, Appellant, v . AMELIA J. LaGRANGE, Respondent

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term

Date published: Mar 1, 1898

Citations

23 Misc. 121 (N.Y. App. Term 1898)
50 N.Y.S. 710