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 Petition of Hannibal W. Rappleye, Appellant, for an Inspection of the Books of the Farmers' Feed Company, Respondent, 1899 — 161 N.Y. 615 · caselaw · US
General
In the Matter of the Petition of Hannibal W. Rappleye, Appellant, for an Inspection of the Books of the Farmers' Feed Company, Respondent
161 N.Y. 615·New York Court of Appeals·1899·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 Petition of Hannibal W. Rappleye, Appellant, for an Inspection of the Books of the Farmers’ Feed Company, Respondent.
Matter of Rappleye, 43 App. Div. 84, appeal dismissed.
(Argued November 20, 1899;
decided November 28, 1899.)
Motion to dismiss an appeal from an order of the Appellate Division qf the Supreme Court in the first j ndicial department, entered July 18, 1899, affirming an order of Special Term denying a motion for leave to inspect the books and papers of the Farmers’ Feed Company.
The motion was made upon the grounds that no undertaking on appeal has been filed and that the appeal presents simply an abstract question for determination.
Paskusz & Cohen for motion.
Campbell & Hance opposed.
[MAJORITY]
Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with costs.