General

Julius Fortsmann et al., Respondents, v. Ruth A. Shulting, Administratrix, et al., Appellants

107 N.Y. 644·New York Court of Appeals·1887·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

Julius Fortsmann et al., Respondents, v. Ruth A. Shulting, Administratrix, et al., Appellants. (Argued October 18, 1887; decided October 25, 1887.) This was a motion to dismiss the appeal herein on the ground that the time for appealing had expired when notice was served. Matthew Sale for motion. Nathaniel G. Moak opposed [MAJORITY — Per Curiam mem.] The following is the mem. handed down: “ The notice of the order and its entry did not show by indorsement or otherwise the office address or place of business of the attorney serving it, and was, therefore, ineffectual to limit the time of appeal. (Kelly v. Sheehan, 76 N. Y. 325 ; Bockes v. Hathorn, 78 id. 222.) “ The motion to dismiss the appeal should, therefore, be denied, but without costs.” Per Curiam mem. for denial of motion. All concur. Motion denied.