Edward P. Davis, Respondent, v. The Reflex Camera Company, Appellant

Edward P. Davis, Respondent, v. The Reflex Camera Company, Appellant. Recital of papers in an order — the specific grounds of the decision of the motion need not be. A party to a motion is entitled to have recited in the order disposing of the motion all papers used or read thereon; he is not, however, entitled to have such order state the specific ground on which the motion was decided. Appeal by the defendant, The Reflex Camera Company, from an order of the City Court of Yonkers, entered in the office of the clerk of said court on the 30th day of June, 1904, denying the defendant’s motion to resettle an order theretofore entered in said clerk’s office disapproving an undertaking on appeal. William Riley, for the appellant. Arthur Rowland, for the respondent. [MAJORITY — Per Curiam :] Per Curiam : Clearly, the defendant is entitled to a full recital of all papers used or read on the motion. (Farmers’ National Bank v. Underwood, 12 App. Div. 269.) We think, however, that the recital in the present order is sufficient to show that the court was moved to disapprove the undertaking on the ground' that the surety Holst did not subscribe his true name to it, and that the court read and filed such alleged defective undertaking and the deposition of the said surety on the undertaking. So far as the appellant seeks to have the order amended by stating the specific ground of the disapproval, it cannot prevail, for that, in effect, would be to direct the decision on that .particular ground. (Hall v. Gilman, 87 App. Div. 248.) The appeal should be dismissed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. All concurred. Appeal dismissed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.