Case ID: trans-app_2/html/0190-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Scrugham, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

DANIEL DOUGLASS, Respondent, v. WILLIAM DAY, DAVID P. HALL, and EDGAR M. SMITH, Appellants.
    
      Exceptions necessary to Appeal to Court of Appeals.
    
    When a case does not contain any exceptions, the judgment cannot be reviewed in this Court.
    Appeal from a judgment of tbe Supreme Court, rendered at General Term in tbe Eigbtb District, affirming a judgment for the'Plaintiff, rendered at Special Term, after trial before Mr. Justice Bowen, without a jury. Tbe facts are sufficiently stated in tbe opinion.
   Scrugham, J.

There is not in this case a single exception. Tbe case was tried before a judge, without a jury, on a statement of facts agreed upon by tbe parties. Tbe action was brought upon a promissory note, tbe complaint stating that on tbe 22d of November, 1855, there was paid on and toward tbe said note tbe sum of $166, being tbe avails arising from the sale of certain shares of the Van Burén Harbor Company’s scrip, which was sold on tbe said 22d day of November, by virtue of certain agreements existing between tbe Plaintiff and tbe Defendants, William Day and David P. Hall.

Tbe question as to tbe validity of this sale was involved in the defence, and tbe judge, in bis decision, found “ that on tbe 22d day of November, 1855, there was paid on and toward tbe said note tbe sum of $166, in the mode and manner stated in tbe complaint.”

This finding determined the legal question, as to tbe validity of tbe sale, adversely to tbe Defendant, and if tbe Defendants wished a review, they should, within ten days after notice of tbe judgment, have filed their exceptions, as they should also have done in respect to tbe subsequent conclusion that tbe Plaintiff is entitled to recover against them.

It has been repeatedly decided that where a case does not contain any exceptions, tbe judgment cannot be reviewed in this Court (Hunt v. Bloomer, 3 Kernan 341; Johnson v. Whitlock, 3 Kernan, 344; Magie v. Baker, 4 Kernan 435; Smith v. Grant, 15 N. Y. 590).

The judgment should be affirmed.

Affirmed.

JOEL TIFFANY, State Eeporter.