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.
Robert Emmet Dunham, Appellant, v. John A. Deraismes et al., Respondents, 1901 — 165 N.Y. 648 · caselaw · US
General
Robert Emmet Dunham, Appellant, v. John A. Deraismes et al., Respondents
165 N.Y. 648·New York Court of Appeals·1901·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
Robert Emmet Dunham, Appellant, v. John A. Deraismes et al., Respondents.
(Submitted January 7, 1901;
decided January 22, 1901.)
[MAJORITY]
Motion to amend remittitur granted, and remittitur amended so as to declare that the plaintiff is entitled to recover interest on the. several unpaid installments of his annuity from the commencement of his action, except as to such installments as have accrued pending the action, and as to such interest from the date at which they have respectively accrued, and that the amount of plaintiff’s recovery be apportioned among the defendants according to the shares that have been devised to them respectively. (See 165 N. Y. 65.)