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.
Julia Pomeroy Newell, Respondent, v. Joseph Pomeroy et al., Defendants; Frank R. Chandler, as Executor of George P. Pomeroy, Deceased, Appellant, 1897 — 154 N.Y. 744 · caselaw · US
General
Julia Pomeroy Newell, Respondent, v. Joseph Pomeroy et al., Defendants; Frank R. Chandler, as Executor of George P. Pomeroy, Deceased, Appellant
154 N.Y. 744·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
Julia Pomeroy Newell, Respondent, v. Joseph Pomeroy et al., Defendants; Frank R. Chandler, as Executor of George P. Pomeroy, Deceased, Appellant.
Reported below, 3 App. Div. 619.
(Argued October 18, 1897;
decided October 26, 1897.)
Motioh to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered July 16, 1896, which affirmed a final judgment in an action of partition.
The motion was made upon the grounds that the appellant is not a party aggrieved, within the provisions of section 1294 of the Code of Civil Procedure; that no questions of law are raised by the appeal which can be reviewed by the Court of Appeals, and that the questions raised or sought to be raised are without merit and frivolous.
Blackwell Brothers for motion.
F. L. Minton opposed.
[MAJORITY]
Motion denied, without prejudice to the respondent’s right to raise the question of the appellant’s status upon the argument of the appeal; no costs.