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 Braine, Respondent, v. Julie Rosswog, Appellant, 1897 — 153 N.Y. 647 · caselaw · US
General
Mary Braine, Respondent, v. Julie Rosswog, Appellant
153 N.Y. 647·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 Braine, Respondent, v. Julie Rosswog, Appellant,
Braine v. Rosswog, 13 App. Div. 249, appeal dismissed.
(Argued April 19, 1897;
decided May 4, 1897.)
Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered January 21, 1897, 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 no question of' law is involved and that the decision of the Appellate Division was unanimous that there is evidence tending to support the findings of fact.
David Gerber and I M. Dittenhoefer for appellant.
Champion Bissell for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with costs.