From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Christensen v. Morse Dry Dock and Repair Company

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jul 9, 1926
243 N.Y. 587 (N.Y. 1926)

Opinion

Argued June 2, 1926

Decided July 9, 1926

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

Harrington Putnam and Cortland Palmer for appellant.

James C. Van Siclen, James A. Gray and William S. Butler for respondent.


The stipulation for judgment absolute herein filed is made subject to the qualification that it is "without prejudice to the right of the defendant, appellant, to appeal from said affirmance to the Supreme Court of the United States," etc. The stipulation for judgment absolute (N.Y. Const. art. 6, § 7; Civ. Prac. Act, § 588, subd. 2) which must be filed to give this court jurisdiction on an appeal from an order granting a new trial is in effect a stipulation for judgment by consent in case of affirmance and should, therefore, be unqualified. This court may not dispense with the constitutional limitation on the right of appeal.

The appeal should be dismissed, with costs.

HISCOCK, Ch. J., CARDOZO, POUND, McLAUGHLIN, CRANE, ANDREWS and LEHMAN, JJ., concur.

Appeal dismissed.


Summaries of

Christensen v. Morse Dry Dock and Repair Company

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jul 9, 1926
243 N.Y. 587 (N.Y. 1926)
Case details for

Christensen v. Morse Dry Dock and Repair Company

Case Details

Full title:FRED CHRISTENSEN, Respondent, v. MORSE DRY DOCK AND REPAIR COMPANY…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Jul 9, 1926

Citations

243 N.Y. 587 (N.Y. 1926)
154 N.E. 616

Citing Cases

Weiman v. Weiman

( Roberts v. Baumgarten, 126 N.Y. 336, 341.) It is "* * * in effect a stipulation for judgment by consent in…

Matter of Stevenson Co.

Prac. Act, § 1459). Therefore, as the contract was made in this State and provides for arbitration in the…