Case Name: Julius Forstmann et al., Resp'ts, v. Ruth A. Schulting, Adm'rx, etc., App'lt
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1887-10-25
Citations: 11 N.Y. St. Rep. 763
Docket Number: 
Parties: Julius Forstmann et al., Resp’ts, v. Ruth A. Schulting, Adm’rx, etc., App’lt.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 11
Pages: 763–764

Head Matter:
Julius Forstmann et al., Resp’ts, v. Ruth A. Schulting, Adm’rx, etc., App’lt.
(Court of Appeals,
Filed October 25, 1887.)
Practice—Time to appear from order—Name of attorney must be INDORSED ON ORDER.
The notice of an order and its entry which does not show by indorsement or otherwise the office address or place of business of the attorney serving it is ineffectual to limit the time of appeal.
Motion to dismiss appeal on the ground that the time within which the appeal from an order could be made had expired.
Matthew Hale, for motion; N. C. Moak, opposed.
See 4 N. Y. State Rep.. 463.

Opinion:
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.