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.
Thomas Kane et al., Appellants, v. C. Gunther Rose, as Administrator of the Estate of John Manton, Deceased, et al., Defendants. Joseph Wood, Respondent, 1904 — 177 N.Y. 557 · caselaw · US
General
Thomas Kane et al., Appellants, v. C. Gunther Rose, as Administrator of the Estate of John Manton, Deceased, et al., Defendants. Joseph Wood, Respondent
177 N.Y. 557·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
Thomas Kane et al., Appellants, v. C. Gunther Rose, as Administrator of the Estate of John Manton, Deceased, et al., Defendants. Joseph Wood, Respondent.
Kane v. Bose, 87 App. Div. 101, affirmed,
(Argued January 5, 1904;
decided January 19, 1904.)
Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered October 27, 1903, which affirmed an order of Special Term directing the plaintiffs to pay a certain sum of money to the respondent herein.
Martin T. Mantón for appellants.
Thomas G. Frost for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
Concur: Bartlett, Martin, Vann, Cullen and Werner, JJ. Parker, Ch. J., votes for dismissal. Absent: O’Brien, J.