Case ID: nys_113/html/0547-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "GIEGERICH, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

ROSENSTEIN v. NEW YORK, N. H. & H. R. CO.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    December 16, 1908.)
    Coubts (§ 190)—Municipal Coubts—Notice oe Appeal—Sufficiency.
    Where the notice of appeal recites that the appeal is from an order entered on a certain date, but does not state the nature or terms of the order, and no order of that date is contained in or attached to the return, the appeal will be dismissed; the record not showing what the appeal is from.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Courts, Dec. Dig. § 190.*]
    Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Second District.
    Action by Lena Rosenstein against the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company. From an order vacating a judgment for plaintiff and ordering the return of money collected from defendant on execution, plaintiff appeals.
    Dismissed.
    Argued before GIEGERICH, HENDRICK, and FORD, JJ.
    Jacob W. Block, for appellant.
    William Greenough, for respondent.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
    
   GIEGERICH, J.

The notice of appeal herein declares that it is an appeal taken from an order entered on “May 7, 1908.” There is nothing in the notice of appeal to apprise the court what is the nature or terms of the order of May 7, 1908, and no order of that date is attached to or contained in the return. There is, however, an order in the record dated April 24, 1908, which purports to vacate a judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff, and directing that the sum of $61.27 costs collected by a marshal of the Municipal Court on an execution issued in this action be returned to the defendant by said marshal. While the power of the Municipal Court to make an order requiring a. marshal to pay over money collected by him by virtue of an execution duly issued may well be questioned, that question is not now before the court, as whether or not this last-mentioned order is the one appealed from we have no means of knowing by a reference to the record.

The appeal, must therefore be dismissed.

Appeal dismissed, with $10 costs. All concur.