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.
George T. Maxwell, Respondent, v. James K. Whitaker, Appellant, and Harry B. Hollins et al., Respondents, 1904 — 178 N.Y. 605 · caselaw · US
General
George T. Maxwell, Respondent, v. James K. Whitaker, Appellant, and Harry B. Hollins et al., Respondents
178 N.Y. 605·New York Court of Appeals·1904·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
George T. Maxwell, Respondent, v. James K. Whitaker, Appellant, and Harry B. Hollins et al., Respondents.
Reported below, 90 App. Div. 606.
(Argued April 25, 1904;
decided April 28, 1904.)
Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered January 19,1904, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff and defendants respondents entered upon the report of a referee.
The motion was made upon the grounds that the decision' of the Appellate Division was unanimous and there were no questions of law involved requiring review by the Court of Appeals.
Eustace Conway for motion.
W. C. Prime opposed.
[MAJORITY]
Motion denied, with ten dollars costs.