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.
Virginia N. Taylor, Executrix, etc., Appellant, v. Thomas L. Wing, Respondent, 1881 — 83 N.Y. 527 · caselaw · US
Civil Procedure · MBE-tested
Virginia N. Taylor, Executrix, etc., Appellant, v. Thomas L. Wing, Respondent
83 N.Y. 527·New York Court of Appeals·1881·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
Virginia N. Taylor, Executrix, etc., Appellant, v. Thomas L. Wing, Respondent.
Notwithstanding the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure (§ 791) giving preferences among civil causes, a party claiming a preference in this court must comply with the directions of Rule 20 ; i. e., he must state such claim in his notice of argument, and the grounds of the preference, etc.
(Submitted January 18, 1881;
decided January 25, 1881.)
This was a motion to advance the cause upon the calendar.
The notice of appeal contained no claim of preference.
O. D. M. Baker for motion.
W. Farrington opposed.
[MAJORITY — Danforth, J.]
Danforth, J.
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 791 of the Code of Civil Procedure, giving certain preferences among civil canses in the trial or hearing thereof, it is still necessary for a party claiming a preference in this court to comply with the directions of Rule 20. He must, therefore, in his notice of argument state such claim, and the other facts mentioned in that rule. In omitting these things the plaintiff erred, but it was evidently through misconception of the extent of the statute, and the cause' may now take the preference to which it is entitled.
Motion granted, without costs.
All concur.
Motion granted.