Case ID: ny-sup-ct_11/html/0623-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Brady, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

AMOS S. ROGERS, Assignee, etc., Appellant, v. GEORGE SCHMERSAHL and another, Respondents.
    
      Code, § 348 — notice required Iry.
    
    Where, in an action brought upon an undertaking given in pursuance of section 348 of the Code, a notice had been served by the plaintiff upon the defendant, informing him that judgment was duly entered on the 18th of January, 1866; “that on the 13th July, 1866, the said judgment was duly affirmed on appeal to the General Term of said court, and that the appeal to the Court of Appeals taken herein by the defendant was duly dismissed and judgment duly entered on the remittitur from the Court of Appeals on 21st of June, 1869, affirming the said judgment,” with costs of the appeal: Reid, that the notice was sufficient, although it did not state specifically that the judgment of affirmance by the General Term had ever been entered.
    
      Qumre, whether any notice is required to be given in cases where an appeal has been taken to the Court of Appeals.
    Appeal from a judgment in favor of the defendant, entered upon an order dismissing the' complaint.
    In this action, brought upon an undertaking given in pursuance of section 348 of the Code, the complaint was dismissed on the ground that the requisite notice of entry of judgment had not been given.
    
      R. H. Underhill, for the appellant.
    
      Wm. B. Aitken and Joseph M. Dixon, for the respondents.
   Opinion by

Brady, J.

Davis, P. J., and Daniels, J., concurred.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, costs to abide the event.