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.
James D. Conklin, Respondent, v. John H. Woodbury Dermatological Institute, Appellant, 1900 — 165 N.Y. 611 · caselaw · US
General
James D. Conklin, Respondent, v. John H. Woodbury Dermatological Institute, Appellant
165 N.Y. 611·New York Court of Appeals·1900·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
James D. Conklin, Respondent, v. John H. Woodbury Dermatological Institute, Appellant.
Reported below, 51 App. Div. 638.
(Submitted November 26, 1900;
decided December 4, 1900.)
Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered May 22, 1900, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict, and an order denying a motion for a new trial.
The motion was made upon the grounds that the action is not appealable to the Court of Appeals under sections 190 and 191 of the Code of Civil Procedure, that no question of law is involved, that the findings of fact and verdict were unanimously affirmed by the Appellate Division and an appeal has not been allowed by the Appellate Division or by a judge of this court.
Putney & Bishop for motion.
Benjamin Patterson opposed.
[MAJORITY]
Motion denied, with ten dollars costs.