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.
Charles Tullar, Respondent, v. The Silver Metal Manufacturing Company, Appellant, 1897 — 153 N.Y. 654 · caselaw · US
General
Charles Tullar, Respondent, v. The Silver Metal Manufacturing Company, Appellant
153 N.Y. 654·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
Charles Tullar, Respondent, v. The Silver Metal Manufacturing Company, Appellant.
Tullar v. Silver Metal M. Co., 15 App. Div. 628, appeal dismissed.
(Argued May 3, 1897;
decided May 11, 1897.)
Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered March 2, 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 ground that the action was to recover damages for a personal injury and that the decision of the Appellate Division was unanimous.
B. P. Morehouse for motion.
S. M. Ooon ojiposed.
[MAJORITY]
Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with costs.