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.
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Charles Young. Charles Rieger and Elizabeth Rieger, Appellants, 1897 — 151 N.Y. 651 · caselaw · US
Criminal Law · MBE-tested
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Charles Young. Charles Rieger and Elizabeth Rieger, Appellants
151 N.Y. 651·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
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Charles Young. Charles Rieger and Elizabeth Rieger, Appellants.
People v. Young, 92 Hun, 373, appeal dismissed.
(Argued December 14, 1896;
decided January 19, 1897.)
Appeal from an order of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the fifth judicial department, entered January 2, 1896, which affirmed an order of the Court of Sessions of Monroe county denying in part an application for a remission of the forfeiture of a bond executed by appellants as sureties for the appearance of a defendant in criminal proceedings.
Abraham Benedict for appellants.
Fred C. Ranford for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Appeal dismissed, with costs, on the ground that the order was discretionary, upon the opinion of the court below.
All concur.