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 ex rel. John A. Hamilton, Appellant, v. The Police Commissioner of the City of New York, Respondent, 1906 — 183 N.Y. 566 · caselaw · US
General
The People of the State of New York ex rel. John A. Hamilton, Appellant, v. The Police Commissioner of the City of New York, Respondent
183 N.Y. 566·New York Court of Appeals·1906·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 ex rel. John A. Hamilton, Appellant, v. The Police Commissioner of the City of New York, Respondent.
(Argued January 8, 1906;
decided January 16, 1906.)
Reported below, 100 App. Div. 483.
Motion to dismiss an appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered January 17, 1905, which reversed an order of Special Term sustaining a writ of habeas corpus, dismissed said writ and directed that the relator be remanded to. the custody of the defendant.
The motion was made upon the grounds that the relator had. not surrendered himself into custody and had failed to file the undertaking on appeal required by the Code of Civil Procedure.
William Travers Jerome, District Attorney (Howard S. Gans of counsel), for motion.
Charles Goldzier opposed.
[MAJORITY]
Motion denied. We think the fact that this defendant avoided the jurisdiction of the court is not a sufficient reason for dismissing his appeal. Whether he should be permitted to argue the appeal until he submits himself to such jurisdiction is another question to be met and disposed of hereafter.