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.
Mary Jane Hagner, Respondent, v. Amos C. Hall et al., Appellants, 1897 — 152 N.Y. 642 · caselaw · US
General
Mary Jane Hagner, Respondent, v. Amos C. Hall et al., Appellants
152 N.Y. 642·New York Court of Appeals·1897·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
Mary Jane Hagner, Respondent, v. Amos C. Hall et al., Appellants.
Reported below, 10 App. Div. 581.
(Argued March 15, 1897;
decided March 23, 1897.)
Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered December 12, 1896, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term.
The motion was made upon the ground that the Appellate Division had unanimously decided that the findings of fact were supported by the evidence, and that no questions of law are presented for review.
William J. Griffin for motion.
C. L. Andrus opposed.
[MAJORITY]
Motion denied, with ten dollars costs.