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 Home Bank, Appellant, v. J. B. Brewster & Co. et al., Respondents; The Fifth National Bank of the City of New York, Appellant, v. The Same, Respondents; The National Broadway Bank in the City of New York, Appellant, v. The Same, Respondents, 1899 — 159 N.Y. 526 · caselaw · US
General
The Home Bank, Appellant, v. J. B. Brewster & Co. et al., Respondents; The Fifth National Bank of the City of New York, Appellant, v. The Same, Respondents; The National Broadway Bank in the City of New York, Appellant, v. The Same, Respondents
159 N.Y. 526·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
The Home Bank, Appellant, v. J. B. Brewster & Co. et al., Respondents. The Fifth National Bank of the City of New York, Appellant, v. The Same, Respondents. The National Broadway Bank in the City of New York, Appellant, v. The Same, Respondents.
Home Bank v. Brewster & Co., 33 App. Div. 330, appeal dismissed.
(Argued April 17, 1899;
decided April 25, 1899.)
Motions to dismiss appeals from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department in each of the above-entitled cases, entered October 19, 1898, reversing an order of Special Term modifying a referee’s report, and confirming his report in a proceeding to take and state the accounts of a receiver.
The motions were made upon the ground that the appeals are taken from an order made in a civil action, and not made in any special proceeding.
Thomas G. Shearman and Cortland Betts for motion.
William C. Beecher and Bichard B. TCelT/y opposed.
[MAJORITY]
Motions granted and appeals dismissed, with costs.