Case Name: ROBERT MARTIN, as Executor, etc., Respondent v. CATHERINE NESTOR ENNISMON HICKS, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1875-12
Citations: 13 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 74
Docket Number: 
Parties: ROBERT MARTIN, as Executor, etc., Respondent v. CATHERINE NESTOR ENNISMON HICKS, Appellant.
Judges: Daniels and Brady, JJ., concurred.
Reporter: Supreme Court Reports (Hun)
Volume: 13
Pages: 74–75

Head Matter:
ROBERT MARTIN, as Executor, etc., Respondent v. CATHERINE NESTOR ENNISMON HICKS, Appellant.
Order refusing to postpone trial — appeal from — remedy.
No appeal lies directly to tlie General Term from an order made at the Circuit refusing- to postpone the trial of a case.
Tlie remedy is, in tlie first instance, by non-enumerated motion at Special Term.
Appeal from order made at the Circuit denying a motion to postpone the trial of the above entitled action.
John A. Wright. for the appellant.
Joseph Laroque, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Davis, P. J.:
We are of opinion that no appeal lies directly to the General Term from, an order made at Circuit refusing to postpone the trial of a case. The correct practice in such cases is laid down in volume 3 of Wait's Practice (at page 77), as follows : " Where a party defendant feels himself aggrieved by a refusal to postpone the trial, whether such refusal be made on a trial by jury or a trial by the court, he may withdraw from the trial; and, if the trial proceeds, and the cause is decided against him, he may, upon affidavit showing the application to postpone, the papers upon which it was founded, its denial, and that a decision has been made against him, make a non-enumerated motion, at Special Term, to set aside such decision. He may also remain and try the case on the merits, and, in case of a decision against him, either .pursue the same course to obtain a new trial, or may, if the trial was by jury, under section 265, move at Special Term, on a case, for a new trial, alleging, as one of the grounds, the refusal to postpone the trial; or, if the trial was by the court, he may then, under section 268, appeal directly to the General Term, alleging, as cause for reversal, the refusal to postpone. (Howard v. Freeman, 3 Abb. [N. S.], 292; Ogden v. Payne, 5 Cow., 15; Hooker v. Rogers, 6 id., 577; People v. Vermilyea, 7 id., 369 ; Brooklyn Oil Works v. Brown, 38 How., 451; S. C., 7 Abb. [N. S.], 382; Miller v. Porter, 17 How., 526.)
The appeal from the order of the Circuit Court should, therefore, be dismissed, with costs.
Daniels and Brady, JJ., concurred.
Appeal dismissed, with costs.