
    BUCKLIN, Appellant, v. LAWLOR, Respondent.
    (City Court of New York, General Term.
    October, 1901.)
    Action by Charles A. Bueklin against Charlotte B. Lawlor.
    William C. Relyea (George H. Fletcher, oí counsel), for appellant.
    Eugene K. Saclcett (Lemuel Skid-more, of counsel), for respondent.
   FITZSIMONS, C. J.

The order appealed from must be affirmed. The stipulation made between the parties hereto reads: “That this action shall not be brought on for trial until after a certain action pending in the supreme court shall have proceeded to judgment.” The action referred to in the supreme court has reached a stage where the defendant has entered an interlocutory judgment, and the other questions in said action are now before a referee for determination. The judgment so entered in the defendant’s favor is merely an interlocutory, or, as we choose to call it in this instance, a half-way, judgment. Although the question now before the referee must result in a verdict in the plaintiff’s favor, yet at this time a final judgment cannot be entered, and thus all of the issues made by the complaint and answer are not fully and finally determined, so that the defendant may enter a full and final judgment. That is, in our opinion, what the parties meant when, in said stipulation, they used the word “judgment.” Therefore the order appealed from must be affirmed, with costs and disbursements of appeal. Order affirmed, with costs. All concur.  