Case ID: silv-ct-app_1/html/0521-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Memoranda.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Julius Forstmann et al., Respondent, v. Ruth A. Schulting, Administratrix, et al., Appellants.
    
      Court of Appeals,
    
      October 25, 1887.
    See 4 N. Y. St. Rep. 463.
    
      Appeal. Time.—A notice of an order and its entry is ineffectual to limit the time of appeal, unless it shows by indorsement or otherwise the office address or place of business of the attorney serving it.
    Motion to dismiss the appeal herein on the ground that the time for appealing had expired when the notice was served.
    
      Matthew Hale, for motion.
    
      N. C. Moak, opposed.
   Memoranda.

The notice of the order and its entry did

not show by indorsement or otherwise the office address or place of business of the attorney serving it, and was therefore ineffectual to limit the time of appeal. Kelly v. Sheehan, 76 N. Y. 325; Bockes v. Hathorn, 78 id. 222.

The motion to dismiss the appeal should therefore be denied, but without costs.