Case Name: Daniel R. Liddy, Appellant, v. Long Island City, Respondent
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1886-06-08
Citations: 102 N.Y. 726
Docket Number: 
Parties: Daniel R. Liddy, Appellant, v. Long Island City, Respondent.
Judges: All concur.
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 102
Pages: 726–727

Head Matter:
Daniel R. Liddy, Appellant, v. Long Island City, Respondent.
(Argued June 1, 1886 ;
decided June 8, 1886.)
This was a motion to dismiss an appeal, for failure to file an, undertaking.
The following is the mem. of opinion:
“ Leave was granted the appellant to file an undertaking on this appeal, nunc pro tune, and such undertaking was filed, and notice thereof given to the respondent’s attorney, who resided at Long Island City, on August 7, 1885, by depositing the same, properly directed, in the post-office of the city- of New "York, where the appellant’s attorney resided.
“ The proof shows that the respondent’s attorney excepted to the sureties, and mailed notice thereof to the appellant’s attorney, addressed to him at Hew York city, in the post-office at Long Island City, on the 17th day of August, 1885. This notice was properly served within ten days, even without the allowance of the double time authorized in case of the service of the precedent notice by mail (§ 798, Code of Civ. Pro.), and required the appellant to cause the sureties on his undertaking to justify, in order to-retain his appeal. This he did not do. (Code of Civ. Pro., § 1335.)
“ The appeal should, therefore, be dismissed, unless the appellant perfect his undertaking within twenty days from the service of this order, and pay $10 costs of this' motion.”
N. T. Payne for appellant.
James M. lyddy for respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam mem.
for granting motion, unless appellant perfect his undertaking as therein specified.
All concur.
Ordered accordingly.