Securities

Philip D. Armour et al., Respondents, v. Daniel Gaffey et al., Appellants

162 N.Y. 652·New York Court of Appeals·1900·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

Philip D. Armour et al., Respondents, v. Daniel Gaffey et al., Appellants. Reported below, 30 App. Div. 121. (Argued April 16, 1900; decided April 20, 1900.) Motion to compel appellants to file a new undertaking on appeal from a judgment and order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered May 6, 1898, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiffs entered upon the report of a referee. The motion was made upon the ground that since the execution of the undertaking the circumstances of the sureties have become so precarious that there is reason to apprehend that such undertaking is not sufficient for the security of the respondents. Lewis E. Carr for motion. John T. Norton opposed. [MAJORITY] Motion for new undertaking, etc., denied, without costs.