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.
Holland Trust Company, Plaintiff, v. Thomson-Houston Electric Company of New York et al., Defendants. George W. Maslin et al., Individually and as Reorganization Committee, Appellants; James S. Coleman et al., Respondents, 1897 — 151 N.Y. 660 · caselaw · US
General
Holland Trust Company, Plaintiff, v. Thomson-Houston Electric Company of New York et al., Defendants. George W. Maslin et al., Individually and as Reorganization Committee, Appellants; James S. Coleman et al., Respondents
151 N.Y. 660·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
Holland Trust Company, Plaintiff, v. Thomson-Houston Electric Company of New York et al., Defendants. George W. Maslin et al., Individually and as Reorganization Committee, Appellants; James S. Coleman et al., Respondents.
Reported below, 9 App. Div. 473.
(Argued January 18, 1897;
decided January 26, 1897.)
Motion to dismiss an appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, made November 6, 1896, which reversed an order of Special Term denying a motion to compel the purchasers at. a foreclosure sale to complete their purchase.
The motion was made upon the ground that the Court of Appeals has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, which was taken without leave of the Appellate Division.
A. J. Dittenhoefer and David Gerber for motion.
Charles R. Westbrook and Eustace Conway opposed.
[MAJORITY]
Motion granted, with ten dollars costs.