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.
Beatrice Presswood King, Appellant, v. Arthur R. King, Respondent, 1902 — 172 N.Y. 604 · caselaw · US
General
Beatrice Presswood King, Appellant, v. Arthur R. King, Respondent
172 N.Y. 604·New York Court of Appeals·1902·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
Beatrice Presswood King, Appellant, v. Arthur R. King, Respondent.
King v. King, 73 App. Div. 547, appeal dismissed.
(Argued October 6, 1902;
decided October 14, 1902.)
Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate ' Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered June 23, 1902, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a verdict directed by the court and an order denying a motion for a new trial.
The motion was made upon the ground that the Court of Appeals had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, the record presenting no question of law for review.
Daniel F. Delavan for motion.
G. Burohard Smith opposed.
[MAJORITY]
Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with costs and ten dollars costs of motion.