
    John J. Quinlan, Resp’t, v. Emily A. Stratton and Samuel W. Judson, App’lts.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
    
    
      Filed December 9, 1889.)
    
    1. New trial—Affidavits.
    After appeal from judgment, defendants moved for a new trial on affidavits stating that the decision was not made in time and that there was a substantial defense on the merits, which was summarily disposed of on ■the trial. Held, that the affidavits made no case for a new trial.
    3. Appeal—Notice.
    The notice of appeal did not specify the order appealed from except by its date and the date of filing. Held, that the practice was irregular
    Appeal from an order denying motion for a new trial.
    The notice of appeal states that it is “ from an order dated the 26th day of January, 1889, and filed in the office of the clerk of the county of Queens, by the plaintiff, on the 7th day of February, 1889.” It does not state the nature of the order.-
    Action to foreclose a mortgage. The answers set up that ■defendant, Judson, was the owner of decrees of foreclosure of prior mortgages.
    After defendants had appealed from the judgment rendered against them and had served a proposed case, they moved for á new trial, no ground for the motion being assigned in the notice; upon affidavits which stated that the decision was not made within a year after the trial and that defendants had a substantial defense on the merits, which was summarily disposed of by the court and numerous and complicated defenses were not presented so as to be understood by the court.
    
      Samuel W Judson, for app’lts; A. H. Daily, for resp’t.
   Dykman, J.

This is an action for the foreclosure of a mortgage, and upon the trial the plaintiff had judgment. The defendants appealed from the judgment and made and served a proposed case. Before the case was settled the defendants moved upon affidavits which are now printed amongsthe papers submitted to us for a new trial without disclosing any grounds for the motion.

The motion was denied and the defendants have appealed from the order of denial.

The affidavits make no case for a new trial and the practice was irregular.

The order should- be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Barnard, P. J., concurs.  