Case Name: Paddock against The Springfield Fire and Marine Insurance Company
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1855-06
Citations: 12 N.Y. 591
Docket Number: 
Parties: Paddock against The Springfield Fire and Marine Insurance Company.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 12
Pages: 591–592

Head Matter:
Paddock against The Springfield Fire and Marine Insurance Company.
A judgment, to lie reviewable in this court, must be a final judgment of the court below in the action.
Accordingly, where the plaintiff demurred to portions of the defendant's answer, and judgment was rendered thereon against the defendant in the court below, leaving issues of fact in the cause undecided; Held, that the judgment on the demurrer was not reviewable in this court until the issues of fact were disposed of and final judgment given in the action.
Action commenced in the supreme court in 1853, upon a policy of insurance issued by the defendant. The defendant’s answer denied some of the material allegations of the complaint, and set up several distinct defences by way of new matter. To two of these defences the plaintiff demon red on the ground that the facts therein respectively stated did not constitute a defence to the action. The court at a special term held the portions of the answer demurred to sufficient, overruled the demurrers and ordered judgment in the action in favor of the defendant. Such a judgment was perfected with costs against the plaintiff. The plaintiff appealed; and at a general term of the supreme court sitting in the 5th district the demurrers were held well taken, the judgment rendered at the special term reversed, and judgment ordered in favor of the plaintiff on the demurrers, with leave to the defendant to amend on payment of costs. The defendant omitted to pay the costs and amend, and judgment was perfected in favor of the plaintiff for the costs. From this judgment the defendant appealed to this court. The issues of fact in the cause had not been tried
The cause was submitted on printed briefs, by
John Lansing, for the appellant.
Wm. B. Farwell, for the respondent.

Opinion:
By the Court. Johnson, J.
In this case the plaintiff demurred to certain parts of the defendant's answer. The supreme court at special term held the answer good in law, and gave judgment for the defendant. The general term reversed this judgment, and held that the parts of the answer demurred to were not in law, a defence to the plaintiff's claim. This leaves the issues of fact in the case undisposed of. The cause should have been tried and a final judgment on the merits pronounced before an appeal was brought to this court. Our jurisdiction is to review final judgments,
The appeal must therefore be dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed.