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.
James A. Deering, Respondent, v. William J. Reilly et al., Appellants, 1899 — 159 N.Y. 567 · caselaw · US
General
James A. Deering, Respondent, v. William J. Reilly et al., Appellants
159 N.Y. 567·New York Court of Appeals·1899·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 A. Deering, Respondent, v. William J. Reilly et al., Appellants.
Reported below, 38 App. Div. 164.
(Argued June 5, 1899;
decided June 13, 1899.)
Motion to prefer an appeal from, an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered March 23, 1899, sustaining plaintiff’s exception to a dismissal of the complaint on the trial, ordered to be heard in the first instance by the Appellate Division, and granting a new trial.
The motion was made upon the ground that defendants would be greatly benefited by a speedy hearing of the appeal.
Thompson cfe Maloney for motion.
No one opposed.
[MAJORITY]
Motion denied, without costs.