From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Whitney v. Chesbro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
May 8, 1935
244 App. Div. 594 (N.Y. App. Div. 1935)

Opinion

May 8, 1935.

Appeal from Supreme Court of Cattaraugus County.

James S. Pierce, for the appellant.

Henry Donnelly [ D.L. Jewell of counsel], for the respondents Whitney.

William Johns [ D.L. Jewell of counsel], for the respondent Genevieve M. Danford.

Present — SEARS, P.J., TAYLOR, EDGCOMB, CROSBY and LEWIS, JJ.


The judgment was rendered in an action in which the court had jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject-matter. The judgment, although an unusual one, seems equitable. Far from appealing from the judgment, the moving parties, who now ask that the judgment be vacated and set aside, acted under it to secure an advantage awarded to them by the judgment. This fact alone should deprive them of the privilege of vacating the judgment. But it is well settled that, where the court has jurisdiction, its judgment cannot be attacked for error by motion. An appeal is the appropriate remedy. ( Fisher v. Hepburn, 48 N.Y. 41.)

All concur.


Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.


Summaries of

Matter of Whitney v. Chesbro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
May 8, 1935
244 App. Div. 594 (N.Y. App. Div. 1935)
Case details for

Matter of Whitney v. Chesbro

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Application of VICTOR E. WHITNEY and Others…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: May 8, 1935

Citations

244 App. Div. 594 (N.Y. App. Div. 1935)
280 N.Y.S. 138

Citing Cases

Tomoser v. Hegyi

An appeal is the appropriate remedy." ( Matter of Whitney v. Chesbro, 244 App. Div. 594; see, also, Klein v.…

Miller v. Miller

The weight of authority and the holdings of this court are to the effect that under the facts and…