Case ID: how-pr_64/html/0225-01.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

N. Y. SUPERIOR COURT.
    Diego S. Caro et al., respondents, agt. The Metropolitan Elevated Railroad Company, appellant.
    
      Practice as to entry of judgment— Order—Special term cannot pass upon intent of general term order.
    
    After the settlement of a general term order, and the taxation of costs, the entry of judgment" follows, as matter of course, in conformity to the order, no notice of entry of judgment being required.
    The special term cannot pass upon the question whether a general term order expresses the intent of the court.
    
      General Term, November, 1882.
    
      Before Sedgwick, C. J., Freedman and Abnoux, JJ.
    
    
      Appeal from an order denying motion to vacate or resettle judgment.
    
      Julien T. Davies and Roger Foster, for plaintiffs, respondents.
    
      Dorsheimer, Bacon & Deyo, for defendant and appellant.
   Per Curiam.

On or about the 27th day of June, 1879, judgment in this action was entered in defendant’s favor upon a demurrer, from which judgment an appeal was taken, and on or about the 5th day of April, 1880, the judgment was reversed and judgment directed for plaintiff. The order was settled on notice and was absolute. The original plaintiff having died the action was revived, and thereafter, and on or about the' 10th day of May, 1882, judgment herein was entered without notice of any kind. Thereupon defendant’s counsel moved the special term to vacate or resettle the order upon an affidavit of one of the attorneys for defendant, in which he states that the judgment was entered without notice, and that he believes that it does not express the intent of the court. This motion was denied.

After settlement of a general term orc^er and the taxation , of costs, the entry of judgment follows as matter of course. It is the clerk’s duty to see that the judgment conforms to the order. Neither the law nor the practice of the court requires -notice of entry of judgment to be given.

The question was made, not that the judgment did not follow the order, but that the judgment did not express the intent of the court. This was not a question for the special term to pass upon.

The order was right, and should be affirmed, with ten dollars .costs.