TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Hammond v. National Life Assn.

James B. Hammond, as Administrator of Frederick S. Barstow, Respondent, v. the National Life Association, Defendant. Frederick A. Betts, as Receiver of the National Life Association, Appellant

Hammond v. Nat'l Life Assn., 61 N.E. 244 (N.Y. 1901)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
New York Court of Appeals · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 11, 1901
Judges
Martin
Citations
61 N.E. 244168 N.Y. 2626 Bedell 2621901 N.Y. LEXIS 878
Headnotes
Appeal—Creditor’s Action. Under section 190 of the Code of Civil Procedure no appeal lies to the Court of Appeals from an order denying a- •“ motion herein to vacate and set aside the -warrants of attachments and * * * judgment in this action” without the allowance of the Appellate Division, since it is an appeal from an order in an action and not in a special proceeding. Hammond v. Hat. Life Assn., 58 App. Div. 453, appeal dismissed.
Summary
Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, made March 22, 1901, which affirmed an order of Special Term denying a motion to set aside warrants of attachment and to vacate and set aside the judgment herein. The motion to dismiss should be denied, because the motion to vacate was a special proceeding in that from its nature it was an original and independent proceeding. (Code Civ. Pro. §§ 190, 416, 3333, 3334; Byrnes v. Labagh, 12 Civ. Pro. Rep. 417; Belknap v. Waters, 11 N. Y. 477; Van Arsdale v. King, 155 N. Y. 325; Marvin v. Marvin, 78 N. Y. 541; Matter of Cooper, 22 N. Y. 67; Peri v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 152 N. Y. 521.) This court is without jurisdiction to review the order appealed from. (Van Arsdale v. King, 155 N. Y. 328.)

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Martin

Martin, J.

This is an appeal from an order denying the appellant’s motion to .set aside the attachments and judgment granted and entered in this action. Manifestly, the appellant’s motion was in the action, and its purpose was to obtain an order therein.

(Van Arsdale v. King, 155 N. Y. 325 ;

City of Johnstown v. Wade, 157 N. Y. 50 .) That fact is not only obvious from the record, but it is equally obvious that the appellant understood and intended it as such. The record discloses that he appeared in the action specially for the purpose of making the motion, and that he never attempted to institute any special proceeding to secure the relief sought. Moreover, in his notice of appeal to the Appellate Division, xvhich was entitled in this action, in describing the order from which the appeal was.taken, he stated that he appealed from an order <c entered in this action on the 30tli day of April, 1900, denying the motion herein to vacate and set aside the warrants of attachments and * * * judgment in this action.”

*264 Therefore, as the order appealed from was an order in an action, and was neither a final judgment nor a final order in a special proceeding, it was not appealable to this court without the allowance of the Appellate Division, which has not been obtained. (Code Civil Procedure, § 190.)

It follows that the appeal must be dismissed, with costs.

Parker, Ch. J., O’Brien, Bartlett, Haight, Vann and Landon, JJ., concur.

Appeal dismissed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1903: 21904: 11916: 11934: 21951: 11962: 119032026peak 1903 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Nazareth Cement Co. v. Union Indemnity Co.177 A. 64 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1934)
  2. McNelus v. Stillman172 A.D. 307 (1916)
  3. Herb v. Metropolitan Hospital & Dispensary80 N.Y.S. 552 (1903)
  4. Olds v. City Trust, Safe Deposit & Surety Co.70 N.E. 1022 (Mass. 1904)
  5. Herb v. Metropolitan Hospital & Dispensary80 A.D. 145 (1903)
  6. Giuliano v. Giuliano278 A.D. 850 (1951)

Most recent

  1. Coucounas v. Coucounas33 Misc. 2d 559 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1962)
  2. Giuliano v. Giuliano278 A.D. 850 (1951)
  3. Nazareth Cement Co. v. Union Indemnity Co.177 A. 64 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1934)
  4. Hiller v. Russo-Asiatic Bank242 A.D. 688 (1934)
  5. McNelus v. Stillman172 A.D. 307 (1916)
  6. Olds v. City Trust, Safe Deposit & Surety Co.70 N.E. 1022 (Mass. 1904)

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.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Van Arsdale v. King, 49 N.E. 866 (N.Y. 1898) 40
City of Johnstown v. Wade, 51 N.E. 397 (N.Y. 1898) 7

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list