From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Merges v. Ringler

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Mar 7, 1899
53 N.E. 1128 (N.Y. 1899)

Opinion

Argued January 11, 1899

Decided March 7, 1899

J. Aspinwall Hodge, Jr., for motion.

Elihu Root opposed.

Elihu Root for purchaser, appellant.

J. Aspinwall Hodge, Jr., and Lorenz Zeller for respondents.


First. The order is reviewable, and the motion to dismiss the appeal is denied.

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.

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

All concur (PARKER, Ch. J., joining in the decision because the court has determined the order to be appealable), except BARTLETT, MARTIN and VANN, JJ., not voting.


Summaries of

Merges v. Ringler

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Mar 7, 1899
53 N.E. 1128 (N.Y. 1899)
Case details for

Merges v. Ringler

Case Details

Full title:EMMA MERGES, Plaintiff, v . MARY RINGLER et al., Defendants. JACOB F…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Mar 7, 1899

Citations

53 N.E. 1128 (N.Y. 1899)
53 N.E. 1128

Citing Cases

Van Horn v. Stuyvesant

This seems to be the principle upon which rest the cases holding titles to be marketable, notwithstanding…

Noethinger v. Jeffries

But he is not entitled to be relieved of his bid merely because of immaterial defects or slight burdens…