Case Name: Robert W. Milbank, Resp't, v. Morgan Jones, App'lt
Court: New York Superior Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1893-07-03
Citations: 53 N.Y. St. Rep. 523
Docket Number: 
Parties: Robert W. Milbank, Resp’t, v. Morgan Jones, App’lt.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 53
Pages: 523–523

Head Matter:
Robert W. Milbank, Resp’t, v. Morgan Jones, App’lt.
(New York Superior Court, General Term,
Filed July 3, 1893.)
Appeal—Abatement and bbyivob.
An appeal from an order reviving an action will not be entertained where the action has since been tried and the judgment recovered therein affirmed by the general term, and an appeal to the court of appeals is pending, as the court will not decide mere abstract questions from the determination of which no practical result can follow.
Motion to dismiss appeal from order reviving and continuing action.
Booraem & Hamilton, for motion; J. M. Jones and J. Fettretch, opposed.

Opinion:
McAdam, J.
The order appealed from was properly made, and would have been affirmed on the merits but for the motion made to dismiss the appeal, which must be granted. It appears that since said order was made the action has been tried and a verdict rendered in favor of the substituted plaintiff. The judgment entered thereon has been affirmed by the general term, and an appeal from such affirmance is now pending in the court of appeals. The order appealed from is now merged in and superseded by the judgment. As a decision on the merits can have no retrospective effect, the appeal should be dismissed. Grunberg v. Blumenlahl, 66 How. Pr., 62; Health Department v. O' Reilly, 49 N. Y. Superior Ct., 524; Fieldhouse v. Neville, 16 W. Dig., 472.
Courts will not decide mere abstract questions from the determination of which no practical result can follow. People v. Common Council, 82 N. Y., 575. The motion to dismiss the appeal must, therefore, be granted, with- costs.
Gildersleeve, J., concurs.