
    Charles G. Landon et al., App’lts, v. Mary N. Townshend et al., Resp’ts.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, First Department,
    
    
      Filed March 31, 1892.)
    
    Ejectment—New Trial—Code Civ. Pro., § 1525.
    This case was twice tried and on both trials plaintiffs succeeded. The first judgment was reversed by the court of appeals, but the latter was affirmed. Held, that three years not having elapsed since the entry of the last judgment, defendants were entitled to a new trial under § 1525 of the Code, irrespective of what they have done in the meantime in respect to appeals, etc.
    Appeal from order vacating judgment in favor of plaintiffs and granting a new trial under § 1525. of the Code.
    Action of ejectment For the facts in the case see 38 St. Bep., 714.
    The case has been twice tried and on both trials plaintiffs recovered judgment. The first judgment was reversed by the court of appeals; but the second judgment, entered in 1891, was affirmed by that court
    
      W. D. Page, for app’lts; J. Townshend, for resp’ts.
   Per Curiam.

It would appear that the defendant as matter of right was entitled to the order in question. The' only valid judgment which was rendered in the progress of the trial was the last judgment which had been affirmed by the court of appeals, and as a matter of right the defendants were entitled to have this judgment vacated, and a new trial ordered upon the terms prescribed by the Code. Three years not having elapsed from the-time of the entry" of this judgment, it was immaterial what the defendants did in the meantime in respect to appeals or other proceedings in reference to said judgment

There seems to.be, therefore, no reason for disturbing the order appealed from and the same should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Van Brunt, P. J., and O’Brien, J., concur.  