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.
Cornelius MacArdle et al., as Administrators of Cornelius MacArdle, Deceased, Suing on Behalf of Themselves and Other Stockholders of The Houston and Texas Central Railway Company, Appellants, v. Frederic P. Olcott, Respondent, 1907 — 187 N.Y. 531 · caselaw · US
General
Cornelius MacArdle et al., as Administrators of Cornelius MacArdle, Deceased, Suing on Behalf of Themselves and Other Stockholders of The Houston and Texas Central Railway Company, Appellants, v. Frederic P. Olcott, Respondent
187 N.Y. 531·New York Court of Appeals·1907·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
Cornelius MacArdle et al., as Administrators of Cornelius MacArdle, Deceased, Suing on Behalf of Themselves and Other Stockholders of The Houston and Texas Central Railway Company, Appellants, v. Frederic P. Olcott, Respondent.
MacArdle v. Olcott, 114 App. Div. 906, appeal dismissed.
(Argued January 7, 1907;
decided January 15, 1907.)
Motion to dismiss an appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered October 29, 1906, which granted a motion to amend a previous order of affirmance of that court so as to show that said order was unanimous.
The motion was made on the ground that the Court of Appeals had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.
Arthur H. Van Brunt for motion.
H. Snowden Marshall opposed.
[MAJORITY]
Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with ten dollars costs.