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
Elise Haussknecht, Respondent, v. Howard M. Smith, Appellant
151 N.Y. 658·New York Court of Appeals·1897·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
Elise Haussknecht, Respondent, v. Howard M. Smith, Appellant.
Deported below, 11 App. Div. 185.
(Argued January 18, 1897;
decided January 26, 1897.)
Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered December 24, 1896, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term.
The motion was made upon the grounds that the Appellate Division had unanimously decided that the findings of fact were supported by the evidence, and that the exceptions to the reception and rejection of evidence were frivolous.
Josiah T. Marean for motion.
Estes, Barnard & Tiffany opposed.
[MAJORITY]
Motion denied, with ten dollars costs.