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.
The Washington Trust Company of the City of New York, Appellant, v. Christopher C. Baldwin, Defendant. William W. Baldwin, as Executor of Christopher C. Baldwin, Deceased, Respondent, 1907 — 189 N.Y. 543 · caselaw · US
Civil Procedure · MBE-tested
The Washington Trust Company of the City of New York, Appellant, v. Christopher C. Baldwin, Defendant. William W. Baldwin, as Executor of Christopher C. Baldwin, Deceased, Respondent
189 N.Y. 543·New York Court of Appeals·1907·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
The Washington Trust Company of the City of New York, Appellant, v. Christopher C. Baldwin, Defendant. William W. Baldwin, as Executor of Christopher C. Baldwin, Deceased, Respondent.
Washington Trust Oo. v. Baldwin, 118 App. Div. 186, affirmed.
(Argued September 30, 1907;
decided October 15, 1907.)
Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered March 8, 1907, which reversed an order of Special Term granting a motion to revive and continue an action against the executor of a sole defendant and denied paid motion.
The following question was certified : “ Was the plaintiff entitled as a matter of right to a revival of the action notwithstanding the motion to revive was not made until more than nine years after the death of the defendant and the appointment and qualification of the executor of his will?”
IF. C. Percy for appellant.
Maunsell B. Field for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Order affirmed, with costs ; question certified answered in the negative; no opinion.
Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., O’Brien, Edward T. Bartlett, Haight, Yann, Hisoock and Chase, JJ.