Merges v. . Ringler

Decided March 7, 1899

New York Court of Appeals · decided 1899-03-07

Also, motion to dismiss the appeal from the order, upon the grounds that the appeal is frivolous and vexatious, and that the Court of Appeals has no jurisdiction to entertain it.

Relies on 11 E.H. Smith 402 - Smith v. . Secor · Holme v. . Stewart

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1899-03-07

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently May 1983

12 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1 Fvrst. The order is reviewable, and the motion to dismiss the appeal is denied.

¶2 All concur (Gray, J., upon the sole ground that since the cases of Holme v. Stewart [155 N. Y. 695], Smith v. Secor, and Kingsland v. Fuller [157 N. Y. 402 and 507], the question can no longer be deemed to be an open one, and that the court is committed to the view that such orders are final orders in special proceedings), except Parker, Ch. J., Martin and Vann, JJ., dissenting.

¶3 Second. On the merits, the order is affirmed on the opinion below, with costs.

All concur (Parker, Oh. J., joining in the decision because the court has determined the order to be appealable), except Bartlett, Martin and Vann, JJ., not voting.