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.
Christopher F. Tautphoeus, Respondent, v. Harbor and Suburban Building and Savings Association, Appellant, 1906 — 184 N.Y. 587 · caselaw · US
General
Christopher F. Tautphoeus, Respondent, v. Harbor and Suburban Building and Savings Association, Appellant
184 N.Y. 587·New York Court of Appeals·1906·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
Christopher F. Tautphoeus, Respondent, v. Harbor and Suburban Building and Savings Association, Appellant.
Reported below, 104 App. Div. 451.
(Submitted March 19, 1906;
decided March 27, 1906.)
Motion to dismiss an appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered May 18, 1905, reversing a judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered upon a decision of the court at a Trial Term without a jury and granting a new trial.
The motion was made upon the grounds that the judgment of reversal being unanimous was not appealable as of right to the Court of Appeals; that permission to appeal had not been granted; that questions of fact were involved which were not determined by the decision of the trial court, and that no exceptions on behalf of the appellant appear in the record.
Alexander 8. Bacon for motion.
Hector M. IlitcMngs opposed.
[MAJORITY]
Motion denied, with ten dollars costs.