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.
Benjamin L. M. Bates, Respondent, v. Frederick Holbrook et al., Appellants, 1904 — 178 N.Y. 568 · caselaw · US
General
Benjamin L. M. Bates, Respondent, v. Frederick Holbrook et al., Appellants
178 N.Y. 568·New York Court of Appeals·1904·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
Benjamin L. M. Bates, Respondent, v. Frederick Holbrook et al., Appellants.
Sates v. Holbrook, 89 App. Div. 548, appeal dismissed.
(Argued March 14, 1904;
decided March 22, 1904.)
Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered January 26,1904, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon the report of a referee appointed to assess damages after the affirmance by the Court of Appeals of an order of the Appellate Division reversing a judgment in favor of defendants, entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court on trial at Special Term, and granting a new trial and a direction for judgment absolute in favor of plaintiff.
The motion was made upon the grounds that the appeal was improperly brought and ivas not authorised.
Charles F. Brown for motion.
F. E. Smith opposed.
[MAJORITY]
Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with costs and ten dollars costs of motion.