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.
Charles E. Stevens et al., as Executors of Nathan F. Graves, Deceased, Respondents, v. Charles A. Rouse et al., Appellants, 1899 — 160 N.Y. 664 · caselaw · US
General
Charles E. Stevens et al., as Executors of Nathan F. Graves, Deceased, Respondents, v. Charles A. Rouse et al., Appellants
160 N.Y. 664·New York Court of Appeals·1899·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
Charles E. Stevens et al., as Executors of Nathan F. Graves, Deceased, Respondents, v. Charles A. Rouse et al., Appellants.
(Argued October 3, 1899;
decided October 10, 1899.)
Reported below, 85 App. Div. 633.
Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered December 16,1898, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiffs entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term.
The motion was made upon the ground that the exceptions are frivolous; that a question of fact only is involved, and that the decision of the Appellate Division was unanimous.
Augustus O. Stevens for motion.
Phillips, Hitchcock & McLennan opposed.
[MAJORITY]
Motion denied, with ten dollars costs.