New York Court of Common Pleas, 1893

Zunz v. Heroy

Zunz v. Heroy
New York Court of Common Pleas · Decided July 1, 1893
3 Misc. 614

Counsel

Otto Horwitz (W'. W. Niles, of counsel), for plaintiff (respondent)., Henry Thompson, for defendants (appellants).

Zunz v. Heroy

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

An appeal from a final judgment brings up for review an interlocutory judgment which has'not al/ready been reviewed upon a separate appeal therefrom. Code Civ. Proc. § 1316. The interlocutory judgment in this action was affirmed at General Term upon appeal by the present appellant {Zunz v. Heroy, 15 Daly, 411) and is, therefore, conclusive upon us.

The closest scrutiny of the evidence and proceedings before the referee on the accounting directed by the interlocutory judgment, which involved the examination of much testimony and numerous exhibits, labor which the many inaccuracies in the brief of appellant’s counsel did not tend to diminish, has not enabled us to discover any error. The referee’s findings of fact are abundantly supported by the evidence, and his conclusions of law are fully warranted'by the facts found.

The judgment and orders should be affirmed, with costs.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.