Ross v. Wigg
| Decision Date | 27 October 1885 |
| Citation | 3 N.E. 180,100 N.Y. 243 |
| Parties | ROSS v. WIGG. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
N. C. Moak, for appellant, Samuel P. Wigg.
W. H. Kenyon, for respondent, James C. Ross.
On the seventh day of March, 1884, an attachment and order of arrest were granted in this action, and they were executed on the day following. On the nineteenth of March the defendant obtained an order to show cause why the attachment and order of arrest should not be vacated. That motion was denied; and on the twenty-fourth of March Christie and others obtained a judgment against the defendant. On the twenty-eighth of March the defendant appealed from the order refusing to vacate the attachment and order of arrest to the general term. On the twenty-ninth of April supplementary proceedings were commenced by Christie and others upon their judgment, which resulted in the appointment of Dowdle as receiver of the defendant's property on the fourth of June. On the twenty-seventh of June the appeal from the order refusing to vacate the attachment was argued at the general term. On the twelfth of July the defendant personally, without the presence of his attorney, offered judgment for the entire amount claimed by the plaintiff against him, and at the same time stipulated that an order should be entered dismissing the appeal to the general term on filing the stipulation, without further notice; and on the fourteenth day of July an ex parte order to that effect was entered in the office of the county clerk of Oswego county. On the same day plaintiff's attorney accepted defendant's offer of judgment, and perfected judgment for the full amount claimed. The general term subsequently affirmed the order of the special term, notwithstanding the order dismissing the appeal. On the twenty-fifth of August, 1885, an order of affirmance was entered by Dowdle, receiver, and defendant's attorney; and on the twenty-ninth of the same month the attorney and the receiver appealed in the name of the defendant to this court. This motion is made to dismiss such appel, and we think it should be granted.
It is undisputed that the appeal is without the authority of the defendant, and is brought by the receiver alone, who is not party to the action. It is claimed, however, that the receiver was entitled to appeal, under section 1296 of the Code, which provides that
This case is not within that section. We have great doubt whether the receiver is an aggrieved party. He is in no way bound or affected by the order from which he has...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People ex rel. New York Edison Co. v. Willcox
...does not give him the right to appeal. It must have a binding force against his rights, his person, or his property. Ross v. Wigg, 100 N. Y. 243, 3 N. E. 180. See, also, Honegger v. Wettstein, 94 N. Y. 252. Indeed the certiorari should not have been allowed at the instance of the appellant,......
-
Hunt v. City of Laramie
... ... 95; State ex rel. Kineally v. Boyd, 6 Mo.App ... 57-58; Street v. Bradstreet, 33 Mass. 264; ... Tellinghaust v. Brown Univ. 52 A. 891-892; Ross ... v. Wigg, 3 N.E. 180-181.) The appeal bond was ... insufficient, not being signed by the city. (28 Cyc. 140.) ... The court erred in admitting ... ...
-
Olney v. Town of Barrington
...368, 370, 455 N.Y.S.2d 896 [4th Dept. 1982], lv denied 58 N.Y.2d 606, 460 N.Y.S.2d 1025, 447 N.E.2d 85 [1983], quoting Ross v. Wigg , 100 N.Y. 243, 246, 3 N.E. 180 [1885] ). Likewise, the fact that the judgment "may contain language or reasoning which [defendants] deem adverse to their inte......
-
Porco v. Lifetime Entm't Servs., LLC, 527341
...is not aggrieved when his or her interests are only remotely or contingently affected by the order appealed from (see Ross v. Wigg, 100 N.Y. 243, 246, 3 N.E. 180 [1885] ; Thymann v. AFG Mgt., 112 A.D.3d 455, 456, 975 N.Y.S.2d 879 [2013] ). Although Joan Porco's claims are subject to dismiss......