Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

20 Jones & S. 544

Lovatt v. Watson

The Superior Court of New York City

Decided December 7, 1885

The Superior Court of New York City · decided 1885-12-07

<p> Appeal from order sustaining or overruling demurrer will not lie. </p>

Relies on Cambridge Valley National Bank v. Lynch · Smith v. . Rathbun · Liegeois v. . McCrackan

Decided 1885-12-07

¶1The Court at General Term, said :—“No appeal lies from an order sustaining or overruling a demurrer. An interlocutory judgment should have been entered upon the judge’s decision, and an appeal taken from it. So a final judgment entered upon the interlocutory judgment may be appealed from. In the case of an appeal from such an interlocutory judgment, the order upon which it was entered, and in the case of an appeal from such a final judgment, both the interlocutory judgment and the order may be reviewed, provided the notice of appeal is, upon its face, sufficient for the purpose. These points have been settled so clearly, that it seems surprising that any doubt should now exist (Code, §§ 1021, 1349 ; Cambridge V. Nat. Bank v. Lynch, 76 N. Y. 514; Ligeois v. McCracken, 22 Hun, 69 ; S. C., 83 N. Y. 624; Church v. Amer. Rapid Tel. Co., 41 Super. Ct. 558 ; Smith v. Rathbun, 88 N. Y. 660).”

A. B. Conger, for appellants.E. P. Wilder, for respondent.

¶2Opinion by Van Vorst, J.; Sedgwick, Ch. J., and Freedman, J., concurred.

¶3Appeal dismissed, with costs.

/20/joness/544 · .json · Public domain