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.
General
Raymond L. Herbert, Respondent, v. Fernando E. de Murias et al., Appellants
188 N.Y. 586·New York Court of Appeals·1907·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
Raymond L. Herbert, Respondent, v. Fernando E. de Murias et al., Appellants.
(Submitted April 2, 1907;
decided April 16, 1907.)
Herbert v. de Murias, 115 App. Div. 901, appeal dismissed.
Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered November 16, 1906, which affirmed an order of Special Term denying a motion to vacate an order of arrest granted under subdivision 4 of section 549 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Headley M. Qreene for appellants.
E. Howis Jones, Jr., and Lyman E. Warren for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Appeal dismissed, with costs; no opinion.
Concur; Cullen, Oh. J., O’Brien, Edward T. Bartlett, Haight, Vann, Hiscook and Chase, JJ.