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.
Robert M. Curtiss, Appellant, v. John C. Mott, Respondent, 1899 — 158 N.Y. 663 · caselaw · US
General
Robert M. Curtiss, Appellant, v. John C. Mott, Respondent
158 N.Y. 663·New York Court of Appeals·1899·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
Robert M. Curtiss, Appellant, v. John C. Mott, Respondent.
(Argued January 16, 1899;
decided January 16, 1899.)
Appeal from an order of the late General Term of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered November 21,1895, reversing a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict, and granting a new trial.
Curtiss v. Mott, 90 Hun, 439, appeal dismissed.
George J. Kilgen and John R. Tressider for appellant.
Lemuel Skidmore for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Appeal dismissed on argument, with costs.