
    VAN NOSTRAND v. VAN NOSTRAND et al.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
    May 12, 1908.)
    On rehearing. Resettlement of order directed.
    For former opinion, see 110 N. Y. Supp. 143.
    Argued before WOODWARD, JENKS, GAYNOR, RICH, and MILLER, JJ.
    Henry Hirschberg, for the motion.
    Sullivan & Cromwell, opposed.
   PER CURIAM.

It is improper to enter a judgment on the dismissal of an appeal from an order. The written direction or determination of June 8, 1889, amending the judgment, has been treated on the different appeals to this court as an order. If, however, it be a judgment (see Saal v. South Brooklyn Railway Co., 122 App. Div. 364, 106 N. Y. Supp. 996; Wetmore v. Wetmore, 162 N. Y. 503, 56 N. E. 997, 48 L. R. A. 666; Livingston v. Livingston, 173 N. Y. 377, 66 N. E. 123, 61 L. R. A. 800, 93 Am. St. Rep. 600; Chester v. Buffalo Car Mfg. Co., 183 N. Y. 435, 76 N. E. 480), it was proper to enter a judgment of dismissal on our decision dismissing the appeal. Stevens,v. Central Nat. Bank, 162 N. Y. 253, 56 N. E. 628; Id., 168 N. Y. 560, 61 N. E. 904. We reversed the order denying the motion to vacate the judgment of dismissal entered by the clerk, for the reason that the clerk had no authority to enter a judgment not directed by us, and our dismissal of an appeal from what was in terms an order did not amount to such a direction. On re-examining the case we conclude to direct a resettlement of our order of July 33, 1907, so as to” direct the entry of a judgment dismissing the appeal.

Motion denied, but order of July 23, 1907, resettled in accordance with opinion.  