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.
Francis X. Zapf, Appellant, v. Lulu N. Carter, Respondent, Impleaded with Others, 1902 — 172 N.Y. 666 · caselaw · US
General
Francis X. Zapf, Appellant, v. Lulu N. Carter, Respondent, Impleaded with Others
172 N.Y. 666·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
Francis X. Zapf, Appellant, v. Lulu N. Carter, Respondent, Impleaded with Others.
Reported below, 70 App. Div. 395.
(Submitted December 8, 1902;
decided December 9, 1902.)
Motion to dismiss an appeal by permission from an order of the Appellate Division of the' Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered March 22, 1902, reversing an interlocutory judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon the report of a referee.
. • The motion was made upon the ground that the return on appeal was imperfect in that it does not contain a true copy of the judgment appealed from.
George O. Garter for motion.
John Gonboy opposed.
[MAJORITY]
Motion denied, with ten dollars costs.