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.
William R. Young, Respondent, v. Joseph Gilmour, Appellant, 1902 — 171 N.Y. 680 · caselaw · US
General
William R. Young, Respondent, v. Joseph Gilmour, Appellant
171 N.Y. 680·New York Court of Appeals·1902·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
William R. Young, Respondent, v. Joseph Gilmour, Appellant.
Young v. Gilmour, 59 App. Div. 613, appeal dismissed.
(Argued June 9, 1902;
decided June 17, 1902.)
Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment entered in favor of plaintiff March 20,1902, upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second' judicial department, denying a motion for a new trial made upon a case and exceptions under section 1001 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The motion was made upon the grounds that the decision of the Appellate Division was unanimous; that there was evidence tending to sustain the findings of fact; that no question of law is involved and the exceptions are frivolous and that the record presents no question that can be reviewed by the Court of Appeals.
William H. Deady for motion.
D. J. Newland opposed.
[MAJORITY]
Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with costs and ten dollars costs of motion.