Case ID: nys_64/html/0712-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

VOUGHT v. GEDNEY et al.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    May 17, 1900.)
    1. Appeal and Error—Joint Assignment.
    A general exception by two defendants to a ruling which was not erroneous as to one of them is not available on behalf of the other.
    3. Same—General Exception.
    Judgment will not be reversed as to one of several parties appellant, though erroneous as to him, on a general exception by him, in the. absence of a sufficient exception pointing out the particular error.
    Appeal from city court of New York, general term.
    Action by Nathan F. Vought against William A. Gedney and another. From a judgment of the general term of the city court, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff (61 N. Y. Supp. 1150), defendants appeal.
    Affirmed.
    Argued before TRUAX, P. J., and DUGRO and SCOTT, JJ.
    . John F. Meyer, for appellants.
    Johnson & Johnson, for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

This is a general appeal by the two defendants. The exceptions on which the appellants rely were taken by both appellants, and not separately. As to one of the appellants the rulings were right. It has frequently been held that a general exception by two defendants tó a ruling which was not erroneous as to one of them is not availáble on behalf of the other. Bosley v. Machine Co., 123 N. Y. 551, 25 N. E. 990; Markham v. Washburn (Com. Pl.) 18 N. Y. Supp. 355, and cases there cited.

It was also held by the court of appeals in Schoonmaker v. Bonnie (N. Y.) 23 N. E. 1106, that a judgment will not be reversed as to one of several parties appellant, although erroneous in law as to him, upon a general exception by him, in the absence of a sufficient exception pointing out the particular error.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.