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.
Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York, Respondent, v. Frank P. Crouch et al., Appellants, 1904 — 178 N.Y. 603 · caselaw · US
General
Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York, Respondent, v. Frank P. Crouch et al., Appellants
178 N.Y. 603·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
Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York, Respondent, v. Frank P. Crouch et al., Appellants.
Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Crouch, 90 App. Div. 610, appeal dismissed.
(Submitted April 25, 1904;
decided April 28, 1904.)
Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered January 7, 1904, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at an Equity Term.
The motion was made upon the grounds that the Court of Appeals had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, the decision of the Appellate Division having been unanimous, there being no question of law to be reviewed, the exceptions being frivolous" and the appeal taken for the purpose of delay only.
Henry G. Dcmforih for motion.
Horace G. Pierce opposed.
[MAJORITY]
Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with costs and ten dollars costs of motion.