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.
Wallace Swart, Respondent, v. The Village of Saratoga Springs, Appellant, 1900 — 164 N.Y. 609 · caselaw · US
Civil Procedure · MBE-tested
Wallace Swart, Respondent, v. The Village of Saratoga Springs, Appellant
164 N.Y. 609·New York Court of Appeals·1900·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
Wallace Swart, Respondent, v. The Village of Saratoga Springs, Appellant.
Swart v. Vil. of Saratoga Springs, 25 App. Div. 622, affirmed.
(Argued October 12, 1900;
decided November 20, 1900.)
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered May 7, 1897, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict.
Joseph P. Brennan for appellant.
II. G. Todd and Edgar T. Brackett for respondent.
[MAJORITY — Vann, J.]
Vann, J.
This case presents no question but what was presented and decided in three appeals recently before this court. (Moody v. Village of Saratoga Springs, 17 App. Div. 207; 163 N. Y. 581; Davis v. Village of Saratoga Springs, 17 App. Div. 623; 163 N. Y. 581; Lasher v. Village of Saratoga Springs, 17 App. Div. 624; 163 N. Y. 582.) It belongs to the same series and rests on the same facts. The appellant did not try to distinguish this case from the others, but submitted it without argument, after stating that the questions were in all respects like those presented in the Moody, Davis and Lasher cases.
The judgment should be affirmed, with costs, on the authority of Moody v. Village of Saratoga Springs (163 N. Y. 581).
Pabkeb, Oh. J., O’Bbien, Babtlett, Haight and Martin, JJ., concur; Landon, J., not sitting.
Judgment affirmed.