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.
Mark E. Sandford, Appellant, v. Henry Wagner, Respondent, 1902 — 172 N.Y. 605 · caselaw · US
General
Mark E. Sandford, Appellant, v. Henry Wagner, Respondent
172 N.Y. 605·New York Court of Appeals·1902·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
Mark E. Sandford, Appellant, v. Henry Wagner, Respondent.
Sandford v. Wagner, 71 App. Div. 617, appeal dismissed.
(Submitted October 6, 1902;
decided October 14, 1902.)
Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered April 26, 1902, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court on trial at Special Term.
The motion was made upon the grounds that no question of law was involved in the appeal and that the Court of Appeals had, therefore, no jurisdiction to entertain it.
Edward Hymes for motion.
Alex. Thom opposed. '
[MAJORITY]
Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with costs and ten dollars costs of motion.