
    CRAMP v. DADY et al.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
    November 22, 1912.)
    Action by Herbert W. Cramp against Chester A. Dady and another.
   PER CURIAM.

Motion denied, with $10 costs. The court did not overlook the provisions of section 1001 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That applies only to a case where an interlocutory judgment has been entered and “further proceedings must be taken before' the court or a judge thereof, or a referee, before a final judgment can be entered.” So far as the defendants claiming through Rachel Mun-roe and Phoebe Hendrickson are concerned, no further proceedings /must be taken. By whatever name designated, as to them the judgment is not interlocutory, but final; and Brown v. Feek, 204 N. Y. 238, 97 N. E. 526, is conclusive upon this point. See, also, Matter of the Estate of Halsey, 93 N. Y. 48. See, also, 137 N. Y. Supp. 1116; 138 N. Y. Supp. 1112.  