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.
Administrative
The Benedict & Burnham Manufacturing Company, Respondent, v. David G. Thayer, Appellant; The People ex rel. David G. Thayer, Appellant, v. Peter Bowe, Sheriff, etc., Respondent
82 N.Y. 610·New York Court of Appeals·1880·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
The Benedict & Burnham Manufacturing Company, Respondent, v. David G. Thayer, Appellant. The People ex rel. David G. Thayer, Appellant, v. Peter Bowe, Sheriff, etc., Respondent.
(Argued September 21, 1880;
decided September 28, 1880.)
This was a motion to dismiss an appeal. The case is reported below (21 Hun, 614).
No undertaking was given on the appeal) no return had been filed and no steps taken in this court. Held, that no appeal was pending (Code of Civil Procedure, § 1326; Raymond v. Richmond, 76 N. T. 106), and, therefore, there was none to dismiss.
James S. Stearns for motion.
A. C. Brown opposed.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam]
Per Curiam
opinion for denial of motion.
All concur, except Folger Ch. J., Rapadlo and Finch, JJ., dissenting.
Motion denied.