
    TOWNSHEND v. KEENAN et al. (six cases).
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
    November 11, 1898.)
    1. Ejectment—Time for Granting New Trial.
    Under Code Civ. Proc. § 1525, providing that a new trial, in ejectment, may be granted within three years after the judgment roll is filed, an order granting a new trial was made within the time prescribed, where the motion therefor was argued and submitted within such period, though the order was not entered until after the expiration thereof, as such order related back to the date of the submission of such motion.
    2. Same—Order for New Trial—Improper Requirement as to Costs.
    Under Code Civ. Proc. § 1525, providing that a new trial, in ejectment, shall be granted on application of the party against whom the judgment was rendered, within a period therein specified, and on payment of all costs awarded to the adverse party, the court was not authorized to require, in an order granting a new trial, the payment of such costs - “within thirty days from the date of the entry of this order.”
    Appeal from special term, New York county.
    Six actions in ejectment by John Townshend against Eleanor Keenan and others, in each of which a verdict was rendered for plaintiff, February 15, 1895. Judgment for possession and for costs against all the defendants was entered, and the judgment roll filed, February 18, 1895. Execution for the costs was levied on the right, title, and interest of defendants in the premises in controversy in the ejectment suits, which were sold thereunder to plaintiff, and subsequently conveyed to him by the sheriff. From an order, dated March 14, 1898, on a motion for a new trial, on behalf of defendant Joseph P. Keenan, an infant, by defendant Eleanor Keenan, his mother and next friend, argued and submitted on February 14, 1898, vacating said judgment of February 18, 1895, and granting to said infant defendant a new trial on payment by him to plaintiff of the costs awarded in said action, “within thirty days from the date of the entry of this order,” and also from two orders, dated, respectively, April 20, 1898 (amended May 2, 1898), and April 25, 1898, extending the time for the payment of said costs, plaintiff appeals.
    Order for new trial modified and affirmed, and orders extending time reversed.
    Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and BARRETT, RUMSEY, McLAUGHHN, and INGRAHAM, JJ.
    John Townshend, in pro. per.
    James Kearney, for respondents.
   PER CURIAM.

The order of March 14, 1898 (misprinted 1896), related back to the date when the defendants’ motion for a new trial was argued and submitted. That was within the three years. The order, however, should simply have followed the statute. It must accordingly be modified by striking therefrom the words “within thirty days from the date of the entry of this order,” and, as thus modified, affirmed, without costs of the appeal from such order.

The order of April 20, 1898, as amended by the order of May 2, 1898, and the order of April 25, 1898, are reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements of the appeal (one bill), and the defendants’ motion to extend the time for the payment of the costs referred to in the order of March 14, 1898, denied.  