Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
In the Matter of the Application of James W. Caffrey for the Appointment of Commissioners to Ascertain the Amount of Damages Sustained by the Applicant as Owner of Certain Real Estate in the Village of North Pelham. The Village of North Pelham, Appellant; James W. Caffrey, Respondent, 1901 — 166 N.Y. 638 · caselaw · US
General
In the Matter of the Application of James W. Caffrey for the Appointment of Commissioners to Ascertain the Amount of Damages Sustained by the Applicant as Owner of Certain Real Estate in the Village of North Pelham. The Village of North Pelham, Appellant; James W. Caffrey, Respondent
166 N.Y. 638·New York Court of Appeals·1901·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
In the Matter of the Application of James W. Caffrey for the Appointment of Commissioners to Ascertain the Amount of Damages Sustained by the Applicant as Owner of Certain Real Estate in the Village of North Pelham. The Village of North Pelham, Appellant; James W. Caffrey, Respondent.
Matter of Caffrey, 47 App. Div. 644, appeal dismissed.
(Submitted April 15, 1901;
decided April 26, 1901.)
Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered February 8, 1900, affirming an order of Special Term confirming the report of commissioners appointed to ascertain the damages sustained by petitioner by reason of the change of grade of a certain street in the village of North Pelham and denying a motion by said village for costs against the petitioner.
William J. Marshall, Milton C. Gray and Henry L. Rupert for appellant. .
Milo J. White for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Appeal dismissed, with costs; no opinion.
Concur: Parker, Ch. J., O’Brien, Bartlett, Martin, Vann, Landon and Cullen, JJ.