From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

ROHR v. LINCH

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Oct 1, 1912
78 Misc. 45 (N.Y. App. Term 1912)

Opinion

October, 1912.

Charles E. Chalmers, for appellant.

Abraham M. Pariser, for respondent.


Plaintiff recovered a verdict on February 29, 1912, on which judgment was entered on March 2, 1912, and a copy of the judgment with notice of entry was duly served on the same day.

On March fourth, defendant entered and on March fourth or sixth he served a copy of the usual order denying his motion for a new trial, which recited that it was entered on motion of the plaintiff's attorney. This order was never served upon defendant, but was only served by defendant upon plaintiff.

On March 30, 1912, defendant served a notice of appeal from both judgment and order.

The time to serve a notice of appeal from the judgment expired on March twelfth (Code Civ. Pro., § 3190), but the time to appeal from the order denying a motion for a new trial had not expired, because that order was never served upon the defendant. Code Civ. Pro., § 3190; Bayliss N. Tr. App. 173; Harnett v. Westcott, 16 N.Y. St. Repr. 810; Kolatch v. Wiltchik, N YL.J. March 16, 1909.

Service by the loser upon the winner does not limit the former's time to appeal. Kilmer v. Hathorn, 78 N.Y. 228, 231, 232; Smith v. Havens Relief Soc., 115 A.D. 185, 187; McGruer v. Abbott, 47 id. 191, 193.

Order reversed and motion granted, with ten dollars costs and disbursements of the appeal.

SEABURY and BIJUR, JJ., concur.

Order reversed and motion granted.


Summaries of

ROHR v. LINCH

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Oct 1, 1912
78 Misc. 45 (N.Y. App. Term 1912)
Case details for

ROHR v. LINCH

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM H. ROHR, Respondent, v . GEORGE W. LINCH, as Receiver of the…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department

Date published: Oct 1, 1912

Citations

78 Misc. 45 (N.Y. App. Term 1912)
137 N.Y.S. 752

Citing Cases

Kramer v. Barth

The service of the resettled order by the defendants' attorney upon the plaintiff's attorney is not…