Case Name: HIRAM POOL et al. v. ALBERT E. SAFFORD
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1877-04
Citations: 17 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 497
Docket Number: 
Parties: HIRAM POOL et al. v. ALBERT E. SAFFORD.
Judges: Present — Mullin, P. J., Talcott and Smith, JJ.
Reporter: Supreme Court Reports (Hun)
Volume: 17
Pages: 497–498

Head Matter:
HIRAM POOL et al. v. ALBERT E. SAFFORD.
Cha/mfeo'order of county judge— appeal from — can ority be taken after or dm'has been entered, in the county cleric’s office.
Appeal by a receiver in the above-entitled action appointed in supplementary proceedings, from an order said to have been made at chambers, by the county judge of Cattaraugus county, that the said receiver account and show cause why an attachment should not issue against him for contempt.
The court at General Term said “ Tbe original judgment under wbicb tbe supplementary proceedings were instituted, was recovered in tbe Supreme Court. Tbe said order, if reviewed by tbis court, is to be reviewed in tbe same manner as if made by a judge of tbe Supreme Court. (Code, § 403.)
Sucb an ordei’, made out of court, cannot be reviewed on appeal, unless entered witb tbe clerk of tbe court. (Code, § 350.)
Tbe case contains no evidence that tbe order appealed from has ever been entered anywhere, and there is no evidence, sucb as tbe statute requires, that any sucb order has been made. Consequently, tbis court bas no jurisdiction to act upon tbe appeal, wbicb must therefore be dismissed.”
J. M. Gongdon, for appellant C. E. Marsh, receiver. G. Z. Lmcohi, for S. 0. Green, respondent.

Opinion:
' Opinion by Talcott, J.
Present — Mullin, P. J., Talcott and Smith, JJ.
Appeal dismissed, witb ten dollars costs and disbursements.