Louis V. Southack, Respondent, v. George Southack, Appellant, Impleaded with Others

Louis V. Southack, Respondent, v. George Southack, Appellant, Impleaded with Others. A recital that a motion was made "upon all the pleadings and proceedings in this action” is too indefinite. An order which recites that the motion was made upon certain specified papers and upon all the pleadings and proceedings in this action,” is indefinite in that it does hot show what particular papers were used, and should be resettled by striking out such recital. Appeal hy the defendant, George Southaclc, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Trial Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 15th day of March, 1901, denying said defendant’s motion to resettle an order theretofore granted in the action. Clarence P. Moser, for the appellant. FramlFm JVevnts, for the respondent. [MAJORITY — Per Curiam :] Per Curiam : The order in this case, in the recital of the papers used upon the motion, recites certain papers and then states “ upon all the pleadings and proceedings in this action.” The motion was to resettle such order by striking out this recital. The motion should have been granted. Rule 3 of Supreme Court Rules requires that all papers read, or used upon the motion, on either side, shall be specified in the order. The recital asked to be stricken out assumes that other papers were used, but is so indefinite as not to show what they were. This is a violation of the rule above mentioned and disregard of a decision of this court. (Faxon v. Mason, 87 Hun, 139.) The. order should be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the same remitted to the judge who made it for resettlement. Present—Van Brunt, P. J., Patterson, Ingraham, McLaughlin and Hatch, JJ. Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and Same remitted for resettlement.