
    Louis Curtis, App’lt, v. Charles L. Ritzmann, Resp’t.
    
      (New York Common Pleas, General T&rm,
    
    
      Filed March 15, 1894.)
    
    1. Appeal—Limitation.
    Strict practice is required of a party who would limit the time of his adversary to appeal.
    2. Same—Notice op entry op judgment.
    The omission of the date of entry of the judgment in the notice cannot be supplied by information in the copy of judgment, upon which such notice is indorsed.
    Appeal by the plaintiff from an order of the general term of the city court affirming an order denying his motion to dismiss defendant’s appeal from an interlocutory judgment on the ground that the appeal was not taken in time.
    
      R F. Bullard, for app’lt; J. G. Tlammer,'for resp’t.
   The Court.

The defendant interposed a demurrer which was overruled, an interlocutory was 28, 1893. His notice of appeal therefrom was served on January-19, 1894, and was too late if plaintiff had given proper notice of the entry of his judgment more than ten days previously. Code, § 3190.-

We agree with the city court that the notice waá not sufficient, because it failed to state the date of the entry of the judgment. It was indorsed upon a copy of the judgment and its sufficiency must be determined by what it contained and cannot be supported by information as to the date of entry contained in another part of the document. Date of entry of the judgment is a requisite of the notice. Matter of N. Y. C R. R. Co., 60 N. Y. 112. This is to enable the adversary to insert the exact date in his notice of appeal, for if there be error in giving date of entry of the judgment in the notice of appeal, or in the undertaking on appeal, they are irregular and may be disregarded. Dinkel v. Wehle, 61 How. 159. Strict practice is required of a party who would limit the time of his adversary to appeal. Good v. Deland, 119 N. Y. 153 ; 28 St. Rep. 935.

Order affirmed, with costs and disbursements.  