Case ID: abb-pr-ns_12/html/0288-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Daly, Ch. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

ELIAS against BABCOCK.
    
      New York Common Pleas;
    
    
      Special Term, February, 1872.
    Appeal.—Notice to Limit Time.
    Where the successful party treats the case as one in which a notice of the entry of judgment is necessary, in order to'limit Ms adversary’s time to appeal, and accordingly gives him such notice, a notice of appeal seasonably served after such notice is enough, and the party cannot object that the notice of appeal should have been served within twenty days after judgment.
   Daly, Ch. J.

The defendant has treated this as a ease in which it was necessary to notify the plaintiff that judgment had been recovered against him, which he did by serving upon the plaintiff a written notice of the fact and of the time of the recovery of the judgment, and the plaintiff served his notice of appeal within twenty days after the service of this written notice (see Code of Procedure, §§ 332, 352). The defendant will be held concluded by his own act, and will not now be allowed to go behind it and object that the notice of appeal should have been served within twenty days after the entry of the judgment. To hold otherwise, would be to allow him to take advantage of an act by which, though he may not have so intended, he evidently misled the plaintiff as to the time from which the twenty days were to run.