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.
Henry H. Jackson et al., as Executors of and Trustees under the Will of Peter A. H. Jackson, Appellants, v. Mary E. Rowe, Respondent, 1907 — 188 N.Y. 641 · caselaw · US
General
Henry H. Jackson et al., as Executors of and Trustees under the Will of Peter A. H. Jackson, Appellants, v. Mary E. Rowe, Respondent
188 N.Y. 641·New York Court of Appeals·1907·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
Henry H. Jackson et al., as Executors of and Trustees under the Will of Peter A. H. Jackson, Appellants, v. Mary E. Rowe, Respondent.
(Argued May 20, 1907;
decided May 28, 1907.)
Reported below, 106 App. Div. 65, 614.
'Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered June 29, 1905, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term. Also motion to dismiss an appeal from an order of said Appellate Division, entered June 29, 1905, which affirmed an order of Special Term denying a motion for a new trial.
The first motion was made upon the ground that no questions of law were raised which could be reviewed by the Court of Appeals, the exceptions being frivolous and the Appellate Division having unanimously decided that the findings of the trial court were supported by the evidence. The second on the grounds that the order sought to be reviewed was not an intermediate order and the granting or refusing thereof was discretionary.
F. B. Woodruff for motion.
John L. Wells opposed.
[MAJORITY]
Motion to dismiss appeal from judgment denied, with ten dollars costs. Appeal from order dismissed and record deemed amended by striking out all papers and proceedings with reference thereto.