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.
Sarah Irene Lane, as Administratrix of the Estate of Charles W. D. Lane, Deceased, Respondent, v. The Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company, Appellant, 1903 — 176 N.Y. 557 · caselaw · US
General
Sarah Irene Lane, as Administratrix of the Estate of Charles W. D. Lane, Deceased, Respondent, v. The Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company, Appellant
176 N.Y. 557·New York Court of Appeals·1903·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
Sarah Irene Lane, as Administratrix of the Estate of Charles W. D. Lane, Deceased, Respondent, v. The Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company, Appellant.
Lane v. Brooklyn Heights B. B. Co., 85 App. Div. 85, appeal dismissed.
(Argued October 5, 1903;
decided October 13, 1903.)
Motion to dismiss an appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered June 19, 1903, which affirmed an order of Special Term denying a motion for a new trial upon the ground of alleged newly-discovered evidence.
The motion was made upon the grounds that the order appealed from was not a final order in the action nor had permission to appeal therefrom been granted.
James G. Gropsey for motion.
George D. Feoma/ns opposed.
[MAJORITY]
Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with costs and ten dollars costs of motion.