
    SPEISER v. GREITZER.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    December 16, 1908.)
    Coubts (§ 190)—Municipal Courts—Decisions Review able.
    An ex parte order of the Municipal Court, vacating an ex parte order denying a motion to open defendant’s default upon the ground that the defendant had failed to comply with a previous order which opened such default, is not appealable.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Courts, Cent. Dig. § 103; Dec. Dig. § 190.*]
    Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Second District.
    Action by Morris Speiser against Joseph B. Greitzer. From an ex parte order of the Municipal Court, vacating an ex parte order denying a motion to open defendant’s default, plaintiff appeals.
    Appeal dismissed.
    Argued before GIEGERICH, HENDRICK, and FORD, JJ.
    Isidore Oshlag, for appellant.
    Bennett E. Siegelstein, for respondent.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep'r Indexes
    
   PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff appeals from an ex parte order, which vacated an order obtained ex parte, which last order denied a motion to open defendant’s default, upon the ground that the defendant had failed to comply with a previous order which opened such default. It is unnecessary to enter into a discussion as to the validity of the several orders herein. It is sufficient to say that the order appealed from is not one of the orders from which an appeal can be taken, and the appeal must therefore be dismissed.

Appeal dismissed, with $10 costs.  