Case Name: Julius Forstmann et al., Respondent, v. Ruth A. Schulting, Administratrix, et al., Appellants
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1887-10-25
Citations: 1 Silv. Ct. App. 521
Docket Number: 
Parties: Julius Forstmann et al., Respondent, v. Ruth A. Schulting, Administratrix, et al., Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Silvernail's Court of Appeals Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 521–521

Head Matter:
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.

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.