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 Hoffman et al., as Executors, etc., of Alexander Rich, Deceased, et al., Appellants, v. The Manhattan Railway Company et al., Respondents, 1896 — 149 N.Y. 599 · caselaw · US
General
Charles Hoffman et al., as Executors, etc., of Alexander Rich, Deceased, et al., Appellants, v. The Manhattan Railway Company et al., Respondents
149 N.Y. 599·New York Court of Appeals·1896·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 Hoffman et al., as Executors, etc., of Alexander Rich, Deceased, et al., Appellants, v. The Manhattan Railway Company et al., Respondents.
(Argued May 25, 1896;
decided June 2, 1896.)
Motion to amend notice of appeal. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from a judgment of the General Term of the Court of Common Pleas for the city and county of New Yorb, entered March 16, 1891, which affirmed a final judgment of that court. Prior to the entry of the final judgment an interlocutory judgment was entered, and affirmed by the General Term, from which the plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeals, where the appeal was dismissed upon the ground that the judgment was not a final judgment. (See Rich v. Manhattan Ry. Co., 138 N. Y. 668.) The motion was to amend the notice of appeal by adding thereto: “ And the plaintiff intends to bring up for review upon the appeal the interlocutory judgment * * * and the order of the General Term of the New York Common Pleas affirming said interlocutory judgment and each and every part thereof.”
Isaac H. Maynard and Leo C. Dessar for motion.
Julien T. Davies and Brainard Tolles opposed.
[MAJORITY]
Motion denied, for want of power, without costs.