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.
Frances S. Van Nostrand et al., by Guardian ad Litem, Appellants, v. Sarah M. Marvin et al., Respondents, 1900 — 161 N.Y. 650 · caselaw · US
General
Frances S. Van Nostrand et al., by Guardian ad Litem, Appellants, v. Sarah M. Marvin et al., Respondents
161 N.Y. 650·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
Frances S. Van Nostrand et al., by Guardian ad Litem, Appellants, v. Sarah M. Marvin et al., Respondents.
Van JVosfmnd v. Marvin, 16 App. Div. 28, appeal dismissed.
(Submitted January 15, 1900;
decided January 30, 1900.)
Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered May 4, 1897, which modified and, as modified, affirmed an interlocutory judgment determining the rights of the respective parties in an action for partition, entered upon the report of a referee and also appeal from the interlocutory judgment as modified.
Elmer E. Roosa for appellants.
Alfred Jaretzhi for respondents.
[MAJORITY]
Appeal dismissed, with costs; no opinion.
Concur: Parker, Ch. J., O’Brien, Bartlett, Haight, Martin, Vann and Landon, JJ.