La Societe Francaise D'Epargnes et de Prevoyance Mutuelle v. Beardslee
LA SOCIETE FRANCAISE D'EPARGNES ET DE PREVOYANCE MUTUELLE v. MATTIE A. BEARDSLEE, J. L. L. F. WARREN
- Area
- civil
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
Per Curiam.
There are two appeals in this cause prosecuted by defendant Warren; one from the judgment, and one from an order made after judgment, denying Warren’s motion to modify the same.
The judgment was taken and entered against’ Warren by his consent. This disposes of the appeal from the judgment. We will not hear an appeal from a judgment entered by the consent of the party prosecuting the appeal. The judgment must be affirmed.
As to the appeal from the order denying the motion of Warren above stated, we are of opinion from the papers used on the motion that the court was justified in denying the motion aforesaid.
Judgment and order affirmed.
Cited by
- Fowler v. Fowler Civ. 20055 · 1954-07-13
- Sorensen v. Lascy Civ. 11168 · 1941-01-27
- People v. Hodges Docket No. L.A. 10777. · 1928-11-10
- Judnick v. Judnick Civ. No. 3293. · 1920-05-06
- Hibernia Savings Etc. Soc. v. Waymire S.F. No. 4878. · 1907-11-13