17 A.D. 115 | N.Y. App. Div. | 1897
The motion upon which the order appealed from was made was simply a request to the court' to declare that the undertaking filed and served by defendant was in proper form to effect a stay of proceedings pending an appeal from the judgment in this action. The statute prescribes what shall effect a stay. If the undertaking given by defendant was such as required by the statute for that purpose, the stay was effected, and no order was necessary, and no order assuming to effect a stay could aid him. (Grow v. Garlock, 29 Hun, 598.)
The defendant called for the action of the Special Term, conceding it -had authority to act; it did so act upon the motion, denied the same, but gave the right to defendant to file a new undertaking.
“We do not decide mere abstract questions, from the determination of which no practical result can follow; In such cases we have heretofore dismissed the appeal, and see no reason for changing the rule now.” (People ex rel. Geer et al. v. Com. Council of Troy et al., 82 N. Y. 575.)
The appeal from the order is dismissed, with ten dollar's costs and ■ disbursements.
. Appeal from the order of November 23, 1896, dismissed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.