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.
Frederick B. Vandegrift, Respondent, v. The Cowles Engineering Company et al., Appellants; Thomas F. Nevins et al., Defendants, 1899 — 159 N.Y. 525 · caselaw · US
General
Frederick B. Vandegrift, Respondent, v. The Cowles Engineering Company et al., Appellants; Thomas F. Nevins et al., Defendants
159 N.Y. 525·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
Frederick B. Vandegrift, Respondent, v. The Cowles Engineering Company et al., Appellants; Thomas F. Nevins et al., Defendants.
Reported below, 33 App. Div. 148.
(Argued April 17, 1899;
decided April 25, 1899.)
Motion to dismiss an appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered October 4, 1898, reversing a judgment in favor of defendants entered upon a decision of the court dismissing the complaint at a Trial Term, and granting a new trial.
The motion was made upon the grounds that the appellants are legally dead and have no existence in the eyes of the law, and that the appeal is simply taken for the purpose of delay.
Hem'y G. Harris for motion.
Henry W. Goodrich opposed.
[MAJORITY]
Motion denied, with ten dollars costs.