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
James E. Chase, Respondent, v. Samuel Bibbins Impleaded, etc., Appellant
71 N.Y. 592·New York Court of Appeals·1877·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
James E. Chase, Respondent, v. Samuel Bibbins Impleaded, etc., Appellant.
(Argued October 2, 1877;
decided October 9, 1877.)
This was an appeal from an order of General Term, which dismissed the appeal on the part of defendant from a judgment against him. The appeal was dismissed on the ground that the notice of appeal was served too late. This depended upon whether a sufficient notice of the entry judgment had been served. The notice was served not upon the person, who formally appeared as attorney for defendant, but upon a firm of attorneys who' gave an admission in the name of the attorney of record, and who had had nearly the exclusive management of the case. There was evidence O that they were authorized to admit; held, that this court could not say that the court below erred in holding that the notice was properly served so as to limit the time for appeal, therefore order was affirmed.
Chester M. Eliott, for appellant.
D. C. Hyde, for respondent.
[MAJORITY — Earl, J.,]
Earl, J.,
reads for affirmance of order.
All concur, except Folgeb and Milleb, JJ., absent.
Order affirmed.