
    Louis Solomon, Appellant, v. Independent Order Sons of Jacob, Henry Kuntz and Henry Durst, Defendants, Henry Kuntz, Respondent.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
    April, 1913.)
    Motions and orders — denying motion to add papers to judgment roll — order denying motion to correct the minutes.
    An order denying, a motion to add papers to a judgment roll, made after the expiration of the time "within "which to appeal from the judgment and order denying a new trial, cannot be reversed where the appeal papers contain neither the judgment roll nor the papers alleged to have been omitted.
    Where ■ the clerk’s minutes of the trial of an action on a promissory • note erroneously show a verdict for all the defendants instead of a verdict for the defendant indorser, an order denying a motion to correct the minutes will.be modified by directing the same to be amended so as .to conform to the verdict.
    
      Appeal by the plaintiff from an order of the City Court of the city of New York denying a motion to resettle the clerk’s minutes so as to show that a verdict was rendered in favor of the defendant-respondent Kuntz only, instead of in favor of all the defendants as set forth in the extract from the minutes; also to resettle the judgment and order denying motion for a new trial so as to show that the verdict was for the' respondent Kuntz only; also to resettle the judgment roll by inserting certain papers' alleged to be omitted therefrom.
    William Solomon, for appellant.
    Henry Kuntz (Abraham P. Wilkes, of counsel), for respondent.
   Guy, J.

This action is brought to recover on a promissory note on which respondent Kuntz is sought to be charged as indorser. The action was tried only as against defendant Kuntz, and judgment was rendered in favor of defendant Kuntz only; but the clerk’s minutes read, ‘^verdict by' direction for the defendants.”

The appeal papers are defective in that they contain neither the judgment roll nor the papers alleged to have been omitted. Plaintiff’s time to appeal from the judgment and order denying motion for a-new trial has expired. We, therefore, cannot -reverse the order denying the motion to add papers to the judgment roll.

Theré is nothing in the judgment or order which prejudicially affects the plaintiff-appellant’s rights. To. resettle them- nunc pro tunc, as requested, might in effect extend plaintiff’s time to appeal, which the court had no power to do. Guarantee Trust & Safe D. Co. v. Philadelphia R. & N. E. R. Co., 160 N. Y. 1, 7; Code Civ. Pro., § 784. But the clerk’s minutes do erroneously purport to show a verdict for all the defendants, instead of a verdict for Kuntz alone. This might bar an action against or be an adjudication in favor of the other defendants; it should, therefore, be corrected (Clark v. Scovill, 198 N. Y. 279, 285, 286), and to prevent any possibility of the clerk’s minutes being an adjudication of a broader determination than was involved, the order should be modified by directing that the clerk’s minutes be amended so as to read: Verdict for the defendant Kuntz ” in the place and stead of “verdict by direction for the defendants,” and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs.

Q-ebabd and Page, JJ., concur.

Order modified, and, as so modified, affirmed.  