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 E. Hoefler, Respondent, v. Mary R. Hoefler, Appellant, 1897 — 154 N.Y. 760 · caselaw · US
General
Mary E. Hoefler, Respondent, v. Mary R. Hoefler, Appellant
154 N.Y. 760·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 E. Hoefler, Respondent, v. Mary R. Hoefler, Appellant.
(Argued November 22, 1897;
decided November 30, 1897.)
Reported below, 21 App. Div. 633.
Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial dej>artment, entered October 25,1897, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict, and also affirmed an order denying a motion for a new trial.
The motion was made upon the grounds that the Court of Appeals has no jurisdiction; that the Appellate Division has not allowed the appeal, and that the notice of appeal contains no stipulation for judgment absolute in case of affirmance.
William E. Edmonds for motion.
Raines Bros, opposed.
[MAJORITY]
Motion denied, with fen dollars costs.