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.
John T. Wilson, Respondent, v. Helen M. Simpson et al., Appellants, 1881 — 84 N.Y. 674 · caselaw · US
Administrative
John T. Wilson, Respondent, v. Helen M. Simpson et al., Appellants
84 N.Y. 674·New York Court of Appeals·1881·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
John T. Wilson, Respondent, v. Helen M. Simpson et al., Appellants.
The Supreme Court may, in its discretion, instead of compelling the successful party in an action to enter a formal judgment, direct that unless judgment is so entered within "a time specified, the defeated party may enter it; and the exercise of this discretion is not reviewable here.
(Submitted March 15, 1881;
decided March 25, 1881.).
This was an appeal from an order of General Term modifying an order of Special Term which denied a motion on the part of defendants to compel plaintiff to enter judgment. The ‘General-Term order directed that unless judgment should be entered by plaintiff within ten days after service of the order, defendants have leave to enter judgment in conformity to the decision. Held, as above.
B. F. Blair for appellants.
Francis Lynde Stetson for respondent.
[MAJORITY — Per curiam]
Per curiam
opinion for dismissal of appeal.
All concur, except Rapallo, J., absent.-
Appeal dismissed.