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.
Ruth R. Hutton, Appellant, v. The Metropolitan Elevated Railway Company et al., Respondents, 1900 — 162 N.Y. 650 · caselaw · US
General
Ruth R. Hutton, Appellant, v. The Metropolitan Elevated Railway Company et al., Respondents
162 N.Y. 650·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
Ruth R. Hutton, Appellant, v. The Metropolitan Elevated Railway Company et al., Respondents.
Reported below, 19 App. Div. 243.
(Argued April 16, 1900;
decided April 20, 1900.)
Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered July 12, 189t, reversing a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term, and granting a new trial.
The motion was made upon the ground that the appeal was not taken within the time and in the manner prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure.
Sidney Smith for motion.
Charles H. Strong opposed.
[MAJORITY]
Motion denied, with ten dollars costs, on the authority ■ of Guarantee Trust & Safe Deposit Company v. P., R. & N. E. R. R. Co. (160 N. Y. 1).