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.
John W. Clark, Respondent, v. The National Shoe and Leather Bank of the City of New York, Appellant, 1898 — 157 N.Y. 702 · caselaw · US
General
John W. Clark, Respondent, v. The National Shoe and Leather Bank of the City of New York, Appellant
157 N.Y. 702·New York Court of Appeals·1898·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
John W. Clark, Respondent, v. The National Shoe and Leather Bank of the City of New York, Appellant.
Reported below, 33 App. Div. 316.
(Argued November 21, 1898;
decided November 29, 1898.)
Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered July 16, 1898, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon the decision of the court at a Trial Term, a jury having been waived.
The motion was made upon the ground that the judgment is not appealable under sections 190, 191 of the Code of Civil Procedure ; that no question of law is involved; that the findings of fact were unanimously approved by the Appellate Division, and that the appeal has not been allowed by the Appellate Division or a judge of the Court of Appeals.
O. B. Gould for motion.
Putney c& Bishop opposed.
[MAJORITY]
Motion denied, with costs.