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.
Sterns Williams et al., Respondents, v. Benton Turner, Appellant, 1901 — 166 N.Y. 636 · caselaw · US
General
Sterns Williams et al., Respondents, v. Benton Turner, Appellant
166 N.Y. 636·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
Sterns Williams et al., Respondents, v. Benton Turner, Appellant.
Williams v. Turner, 55 App. Div. 636, appeal dismissed.
(Argued April 15, 1901;
decided April 23, 1901.)
Motion . to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered November 17, 1900, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiffs entered upon the report of a referee.
The motion was made upon, the grounds that the Court of Appeals has no jurisdiction to hear the appeal, and that the exceptions appearing in the record are frivolous.
Frank E. Smith for motion.
S. L. Wheeler opposed.
[MAJORITY]
Motion granted and appeal dismissed, on the ground that the exceptions appearing in the record are frivolous, with costs.