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.
The United States of America for the Use and Benefit of Hiram Snyder et al., Respondents, v. Thomas Stratford et al., Appellants, 1901 — 165 N.Y. 638 · caselaw · US
General
The United States of America for the Use and Benefit of Hiram Snyder et al., Respondents, v. Thomas Stratford et al., Appellants
165 N.Y. 638·New York Court of Appeals·1901·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
The United States of America for the Use and Benefit of Hiram Snyder et al., Respondents, v. Thomas Stratford et al., Appellants.
U. S. for use of Snyder v. Hazzard, 53 App. Div. 410, appeal dismissed.
(Submitted January 7, 1901;
decided January 15, 1901.)
Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered July 30, 1900, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiffs entered upon a verdict, and an order denying a motion for a new trial.
The motion was made upon the grounds that the Appellate Division has unanimously decided that the verdict is supported hy the evidence; that permission to appeal has not been obtained from said Appellate Division, nor a certificate that questions of law are involved which ought to be reviewed by the Court of Appeals, and, therefore, this court has no jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
Howard A. Sperry for motion.
H. C. M. Ingraham opposed.
[MAJORITY]
Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with costs.