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.
In the Matter of the Probate of the Will of Robert E. Hopkins, Deceased. Robert E. Hopkins, Jr., Appellant; Fanny W. Hopkins et al., Respondents, 1903 — 176 N.Y. 595 · caselaw · US
General
In the Matter of the Probate of the Will of Robert E. Hopkins, Deceased. Robert E. Hopkins, Jr., Appellant; Fanny W. Hopkins et al., Respondents
176 N.Y. 595·New York Court of Appeals·1903·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
In the Matter of the Probate of the Will of Robert E. Hopkins, Deceased. Robert E. Hopkins, Jr., Appellant; Fanny W. Hopkins et al., Respondents.
Appeal—When Appellate Court Mat Make Order Directing Trial by Jury of Questions of Fact. Under section 2588 of the Code of Civil Procedure an appellate court must “make an order directing the trial by a jury of the material questions of fact arising upon the issues between the parties,” where its reversal or modification of a decree is founded upon a question of fact, and it may do it in any other case where, in its opinion, it would seem that the ends of justice might be best promoted by such a course.
(Submitted October 5, 1903;
decided November 17, 1903.)
Motion for reargument. (See 172 N. Y. 360.)
Joseph MiddlebrooTc for motion.
Qlarence S. Da/oison, Qha/rles Blandy and Andre%o J. Ship-mam,, opposed.
[MAJORITY — Parker, Ch. J.]
Parker, Ch. J.
The motion for reargument must be denied, without costs, on the ground that the question presented is no longer open for discussion in this court. In reported and unreported cases we have often decided — too often to now discuss the question — that since the enactment of the statute, now to be found in section 2588 of the Code, an appellate court must “ make an order directing the trial by a jury of the material questions of fact arising upon the issues between the parties ” where the reversal or modification of a decree by the appellate court is founded upon a question of fact, and that the appellate court may do it in any other case where, in its opinion, it would seem that the ends of justice might be best promoted by such a course.
O’Brien, Bartlett, Haight, Vann, Cullen and Werner, JJ., concur.
Motion denied, without costs.