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.
Theresa Rossenbach, Respondent, v. The Supreme Court of the Independent Order of Foresters, Appellant, 1905 — 181 N.Y. 506 · caselaw · US
General
Theresa Rossenbach, Respondent, v. The Supreme Court of the Independent Order of Foresters, Appellant
181 N.Y. 506·New York Court of Appeals·1905·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
Theresa Rossenbach, Respondent, v. The Supreme Court of the Independent Order of Foresters, Appellant.
Reported below, 98 App. Div. 634.
(Argued February 20, 1905;
decided February 28, 1905.)
Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth ¿judicial department, entered November 25, 1904, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial.
• The motion was made upon the grounds that the Court of Appeals had. no jurisdiction to review the judgment appealed from, it being based upon a unanimous decision of the Appellate Division that there was evidence supporting, or tending to support, a verdict not directed by the court; that the record did not present any questions of law, and that the exceptions taken to rulings upon the trial were frivolous, the appeal being taken solely for purposes of delay.
Charles Ycm Yoorhis and George Y. Fleokenstein for motion.
Elmer E. Charles opposed.
[MAJORITY]
Motion denied, with ten dollars costs.