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.
Michael Tully, Respondent, v. New York and Texas Steamship Company, Appellant, 1897 — 152 N.Y. 630 · caselaw · US
General
Michael Tully, Respondent, v. New York and Texas Steamship Company, Appellant
152 N.Y. 630·New York Court of Appeals·1897·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
Michael Tully, Respondent, v. New York and Texas Steamship Company, Appellant.
Reported below, 10 App. Div. 463.
(Argued March 1, 1897;
decided March 9, 1897.)
Motion to dismiss an appeal taken by permission of a judge of the Court of Appeals under subdivision 2, section 191 of the Code of Civil Procedure, from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered January 6, 1897, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict.
The motion was made upon the ground that the Appellate Division had unanimously decided that there was evidence supporting or tending to support the verdict, and had refused to allow an appeal to the Court of Appeals.
Edwin R. Leavitt for motion.
George S. Coleman opposed.
[MAJORITY]
Motion denied, with ten dollars costs.