Case Name: ALFRED HARRIS, Respondent, v. D. D. BROWN, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1883-03
Citations: 36 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 477
Docket Number: 
Parties: ALFRED HARRIS, Respondent, v. D. D. BROWN, Appellant.
Judges: Present- — Davis, P. J., Brady and Daniels, JJ.
Reporter: Supreme Court Reports (Hun)
Volume: 36
Pages: 477–477

Head Matter:
ALFRED HARRIS, Respondent, v. D. D. BROWN, Appellant.
Appeal— the right to, is waived by procuring leave to renew the motion which resulted in the order from which the appeal is taken.
Motion to dismiss an appeal from an order denying a motion to vacate an order of arrest.
Tlie appellant moved in the first instance to vacate the order of arrest upon the papers on which the same was granted. That motion having been decided against him he obtained leave of the court to-renew the same upon the original papers and additional affidavits. That motion was also decided adversely to him, and after the latter decision he brought his appeal from the first decision denying his motion founded upon the original affidavits.
The court at General Teim said: “ The act of procuring leave to renew the original motion, and the fact that it was renewed, operated, as we think, to waive all right of appeal from the first decision. The same question was thereby brought before the same court, and the only remedy of the appellant was hy appeal from the second order, which of necessity disposed of the right to have the order vacated upon the original papers.
“ On the second motion the respondent was at liberty to bring in additional affidavits in answer to those presented by the moving party, and to strengthen the facts upon which he obtained the original order. Under such circumstances he must abide the results of the second motion, for two reasonsThe first is, that he has abandoned the first motion by obtaining leave to renew it, and renewing it in fact; and the second is, that he has placed himself in a position where the court cannot on an appeal from the first order dispose of the real merits of the motion, because the second application might have shown a state of facts which rendered the order of arrest a proper one, although there may have been some defects in the original papers.”

Opinion:
Opinion
Per Ouriam.
Present- — Davis, P. J., Brady and Daniels, JJ.
Motion granted, without costs.