Hermann v. Ludwig
George Hermann, Respondent, v. Kate Ludwig Et Al., Appellants, Impleaded With Another
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
*633 Per Curiam.
Plaintiff brought this action in equity to establish a will jointly executed by himself and wife on September 30, 1895, also for other relief. The complaint was dismissed at the Trial Term. From the judgment dismissing complaint on the merits, plaintiff appealed to the Appellate Division. The latter court reversed the judgment entered upon the decision of the Trial Term, reversed numerous findings made thereat and made new findings of fact and conclusions of law favorable to the plaintiff. The order of the Appellate Division provided for equitable relief and that plaintiff recover costs and disbursements of the court below and of “ this court ” to be taxed, and - further that “ judgment be entered accordingly.” Plaintiff thereupon entered a judgment which recited the reversal of the judgment below and adjudged that plaintiff recover of the defendants $829.99 costs and have execution therefor, but failed to enter the judgment directed by the order of the Appellate Division. Upon the appeal herein counsel for both parties argued at length various questions determined by the findings made by the Appellate Division. The record discloses a failure on the part of plaintiff’s counsel to comply with the order of the Appellate Division which directed a judgment to be entered in accordance with the order made thereat, and as required by the Code of Civil Procedure (Sections 1345, 1355), thus leaving as the only judgment sought to be reviewed a judgment for costs. Even if we should affirm the judgment appealed from, such action would not enable the plaintiff to enforce the relief which he was awarded by the Appellate Division. The order alone is not a cúmplete judgment but forms a part of the judgment roll. Judgment in pursuance of the order should have been perfected. It is not the province of this court to pass upon the questions involved in a case like the one at bar upon such a judgment as the one entered in this action. The decision of the Appellate Division herein is not reviewable by an appeal from the order *634 made thereat alone, but must be from the judgment entered upon the order of reversal.
The case is, therefore, remitted to the Supreme Court for such action as may be deemed proper.
Hiscock, Ch. J., Chase, Collin, Hogan, McLaughlin, Crane and Andrews, JJ., concur.
Ordered accordingly.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 3 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.