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.
Thomas Kane et al., Appellants, v. C. Gunther Rose, as Surviving Administrator of the Estate of John Manton, Deceased, et al., Respondents, 1904 — 179 N.Y. 561 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
Thomas Kane et al., Appellants, v. C. Gunther Rose, as Surviving Administrator of the Estate of John Manton, Deceased, et al., Respondents
179 N.Y. 561·New York Court of Appeals·1904·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
Thomas Kane et al., Appellants, v. C. Gunther Rose, as Surviving Administrator of the Estate of John Manton, Deceased, et al., Respondents.
Kane v. Bose, 95 App. Div. 631, appeal dismissed.
(Argued October 3, 1904;
decided October 11, 1904.)
Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered June 17, 1904, affirming a judgment in favor of defendants entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term.
The motion was made upon the ground that the appeal presented no question of law for the consideration of the Court of Appeals.
Walter H. Jayeox for motion.
Martin T. Mantón opposed.
[MAJORITY]
Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with costs, and ten dollars costs of motion.