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.
Mart F. Hannon, Respondent, v. Siegel-Cooper Company, Appellant, 1900 — 164 N.Y. 566 · caselaw · US
General
Mart F. Hannon, Respondent, v. Siegel-Cooper Company, Appellant
164 N.Y. 566·New York Court of Appeals·1900·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
Mart F. Hannon, Respondent, v. Siegel-Cooper Company, Appellant.
Reported below, 52 App. Div. 624.
(Argued October 1, 1900;
decided October 9, 1900.)
Motion to "dismiss an appeal, by permission, from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered June 15, 1900, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict, and an order denying a motion for a new trial.
The motion was made upon the grounds that the order allowing the appeal does not recite that a question of law is involved which ought to be reviewed by the Court of Appeals; that no such question is involved; that said order was granted improvidently and without notice to the respondent, and that so much of subdivision 2 of section 191 of the Code of Civil Procedure as authorizes the allowance of an appeal by a judge of the Court of Appeals is unconstitutional.
Abraham Levy for motion.
George Putzel opposed. .
[MAJORITY]
The motion is to vacate allowance of an appeal made ex parte, by a judge of this court, in an action to recover damages for personal injuries, from a judgment for the plaintiff unanimously affirmed by the Appellate Division which had refused to certify that in its opinion a question of law is involved which ought to be reviewed by the Court of Appeals. The allowance of the appeal is not reviewable; the application for the allowance could be made ex parte.
The motion is denied, with ten dollars costs.