Wetmore v. Wetmore
Wetmore v. Wetmore
Opinion of the Court
We think this appeal must be dismissed. The defendant was in default under rule 41 of the supreme court, because he had not served the printed copies of the.appeal papers in
It appears that a similar motion was made at the October general term and was granted, unless the defendant, within twenty days after the service of the order upon his attorneys, submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court to be served with a certified copy of the judgment herein. The appellant insists that, within the time prescribed, he submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court, and was personally served with a certified copy of the judgment, and thus literally complied with the condition of that order.
It may be so assumed, for the purposes of this motion, but if true it does not exempt the appellant from a further compliance with the requirement of rule forty-ona It was sufficient to excuse his default at the October term, but the rule was still operative, and if his failure to serve the printed papers on appeal continued, a motion could be made at a subsequent term to dismiss his appeal for that cause, to which, if made, a compliance with the condition in the order granted at the October term would not be a bar.
The appellant’s counsel states in his brief, in opposition to the present motion, that on April 23, 1892, a motion was made at the general term to dismiss the appeal from the judgment, on the ground that the defendant could not take an appeal therefrom, inasmuch as he had fled from the jurisdiction of the court and remains absent from the state of New York, and that upon the hearing of the motion an order was made granting the same and dismissing the appeal, with ten dollars costs, unless the defendant, within twenty days after the service of a copy of the order upon his attorneys, submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the supreme court, to be served with a certified copy of the judgment; and that an appeal was taken from that order to this court, which is still pending ; a motion to dismiss the same having been denied ou March 7, 1893. It is claimed that, so long as this order remained
The motion must be granted, with costs.
All concur.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Annette B. W. Wetmore, Resp't v. William B. Wetmore, App'lt
- Status
- Published