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 Farmers' Loan and Trust Company, as Trustee, Respondent, v. The New York and Northern Railway Company et al., Defendants, and Artemas H. Holmes et al., Appellants, 1904 — 180 N.Y. 503 · caselaw · US
General
The Farmers' Loan and Trust Company, as Trustee, Respondent, v. The New York and Northern Railway Company et al., Defendants, and Artemas H. Holmes et al., Appellants
180 N.Y. 503·New York Court of Appeals·1904·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 Farmers’ Loan and Trust Company, as Trustee, Respondent, v. The New York and Northern Railway Company et al., Defendants, and Artemas H. Holmes et al., Appellants.
Farmers’ L. & T. Co. v. N. T. & Northern Ry. Co., 95 App. Div. 622, affirmed.
(Argued November 16, 1904;
decided December 6, 1904.)
Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered June 17, 1904, which affirmed an order of Special Term denying a motion for leave to serve a supplemental answer and to bring in new parties defendant.
The following questions were certified :
“First. Were the moving defendants entitled, as a matter of law or of strict right, to make and serve a supplemental pleading—an answer herein, as applied for by them?
“Second. Were the moving defendants entitled, as a matter of law or of strict right, to bring in new parties defendant, as applied for and asked by them ? ”
Artemas H. Holmes and Nathaniel A. Elsbery for appellants.
James F. Horan and Thomas Thacher for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Order affirmed, with costs; questions certified answered in the negative; no opinion.
Concur: Cullen, Cli. J., Gray, O’Brien, Bartlett, Haight, Vann and Werner, JJ.