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
E. A. Childs, as Receiver, etc., Respondent, v. Kirk B. Crane et al., Appellants
143 N.Y. 664·New York Court of Appeals·1894·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
E. A. Childs, as Receiver, etc., Respondent, v. Kirk B. Crane et al., Appellants.
(Submitted October 8, 1894;
decided October 23, 1894.)
Appeal from order of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the fifth judicial department, made March 27, 1894, which affirmed an order of Special Term denying a motion by defendants to compel plaintiff to separately state and number causes of action in the complaint, to make the complaint more definite and to strike out portions of it as irrelevant and redundant.
Pufus Scott for appellants.
A. L. Purdy for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to dismiss appeal; no opinion.
All concur.
Appeal dismissed.