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.
Harvey Joyce, Appellant, v. The Rome, Watertown and Ogdensburg Railroad Company, Respondent, 1899 — 161 N.Y. 630 · caselaw · US
General
Harvey Joyce, Appellant, v. The Rome, Watertown and Ogdensburg Railroad Company, Respondent
161 N.Y. 630·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
Harvey Joyce, Appellant, v. The Rome, Watertown and Ogdensburg Railroad Company, Respondent.
Reported below, 92 Hun, 107.
(Submitted December 4, 1899;
decided December 15, 1899.)
Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the late General Term of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered January 10, 1896, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a verdict.
The motion was made upon the grounds that appellant had failed to give or serve the requisite undertaking and had failed to file a proper return with the clerk of the Court of Appeals.
Mullin, Griffin & Walker for motion.
John W. Shea opposed.
[MAJORITY]
Motion granted, unless appellant within twenty days files and serves undertaking required to perfect appeal, and pays ten dollars costs of motion.