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.
Rudolph Pohle, Respondent, v. Second Avenue Railroad Company, Appellant, 1897 — 153 N.Y. 669 · caselaw · US
General
Rudolph Pohle, Respondent, v. Second Avenue Railroad Company, Appellant
153 N.Y. 669·New York Court of Appeals·1897·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
Rudolph Pohle, Respondent, v. Second Avenue Railroad Company, Appellant.
Reported below, 13 App. Div. 393.
(Argued June 7, 1897;
decided June 15, 1897.)
Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the-Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered January 22, 1897, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict, and also-affirmed an order denying a motion for a new trial.
The motion was made upon the ground that there were-material and controverted questions of fact upon the trial,, and the decision thereof by the Appellate Division is final, and that no questions of law are raised by the appellant’s exceptions which can be reviewed by this court; and upon the-further ground that the notice of appeal herein is fatally defective, appellant not halving stipulated therein, pursuant to section 190 of the Code of Civil Procedure, that, upon affirmance, judgment absolute shall be rendered against it.
Charles Steclder for motion.
Pcvyson Merrill opposed.
[MAJORITY]
Motion denied, with ten dollars costs, on opinion of Martin,. J., in Hutchinson v. Root (ante, p. 329).