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.
Frank & J. G. Jenkins, Jr., Appellants, v. John Good Cordage and Machine Company et al., Respondents, 1901 — 167 N.Y. 616 · caselaw · US
General
Frank & J. G. Jenkins, Jr., Appellants, v. John Good Cordage and Machine Company et al., Respondents
167 N.Y. 616·New York Court of Appeals·1901·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
Frank & J. G. Jenkins, Jr., Appellants, v. John Good Cordage and Machine Company et al., Respondents.
(Argued June 3, 1901;
decided June 11, 1901.)
Reported below, 56 App. Div. 573.
Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered December 31, 1900, affirming a judgment in favor of defendants entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court on trial at Special Term.
The motion was made upon the ground that the affirmance by the Appellate Division was unanimous, and that there is nothing for the Court of Appeals to review.
Edward A. Hibbard for "motion.
Ira Leo Bamberger opposed.
[MAJORITY]
Motion denied, without costs.