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.
Catherine Heath et al., as Executors of George H. Heath, Deceased, Appellants, v. New York Building Loan Banking Company, Respondent, 1898 — 156 N.Y. 682 · caselaw · US
General
Catherine Heath et al., as Executors of George H. Heath, Deceased, Appellants, v. New York Building Loan Banking Company, Respondent
156 N.Y. 682·New York Court of Appeals·1898·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
Catherine Heath et al., as Executors of George H. Heath, Deceased, Appellants, v. New York Building Loan Banking Company, Respondent.
Heafh v. H. Y. Building Loan Go., 91 Hun, 170, appeal dismissed.
(Argued June 13, 1898;
decided June 14, 1898.)
Motion to dismiss an appeal from an order of the late General Term of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, made December 2, 1895, reversing an order of Special Term granting a new trial and denying to defendant a final judgment.
The original plaintiff having died pending appeal to the Court of Appeals, his executors were substituted as appellants herein.
The motion was made upon the grounds that the order is not reviewable .by the Court of Appeals ; that 'any right of review, if any ever existed, has been waived and lost in consequence of the proceedings herein subsequent to the making of the order, and that a review at this time would amount to nothing more than a decision of an abstract question.
William H. Hamilton for motion.
Hector M. Hitchings opposed.
[MAJORITY]
Appeal dismissed, with costs.