From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Reilly v. Simonson

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Feb 4, 1916
111 N.E. 753 (N.Y. 1916)

Opinion

Argued January 27, 1916

Decided February 4, 1916

Harford T. Marshall for appellant.

Theodore H. Lord and Lyman A. Spalding for respondent.


The appellant presents for our consideration a doubtful and serious question which we are unable to determine, for the reason that the form of the order does not enable us to assume jurisdiction. ( Caponigri v. Altieri, 164 N.Y. 476; Wright v. Smith, 209 N.Y. 249.)

The appeal must be dismissed, with costs.

WILLARD BARTLETT, Ch. J., HISCOCK, CHASE, CUDDEBACK, HOGAN, CARDOZO and POUND, JJ., concur.

Appeal dismissed.


Summaries of

Reilly v. Simonson

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Feb 4, 1916
111 N.E. 753 (N.Y. 1916)
Case details for

Reilly v. Simonson

Case Details

Full title:SARAH T. REILLY, Appellant, v . ALBERT SIMONSON, Respondent

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Feb 4, 1916

Citations

111 N.E. 753 (N.Y. 1916)
111 N.E. 753