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.
Henry E. H. Brereton, Appellant, v. Laura E. Gilmore, Respondent, 1902 — 169 N.Y. 598 · caselaw · US
General
Henry E. H. Brereton, Appellant, v. Laura E. Gilmore, Respondent
169 N.Y. 598·New York Court of Appeals·1902·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
Henry E. H. Brereton, Appellant, v. Laura E. Gilmore, Respondent.
Reported below, 66 App. Div. 616.
(Submitted January 6, 1902;
decided January 14, 1902.)
Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered November 15, 1901, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon the report of a referee.
The motion was' made upon the grounds that the Court of Appeals has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, which is from an unanimous affirmance by the Appellate Division of a judgment rendered in an action to recover for services; that there is no question of law involved, and that the exceptions taken by the appellant on the trial are frivolous.
Charles R. Patterson for motion.
T. W. McArthur opposed.
[MAJORITY]
Motion denied, with ten dollars costs.