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.
Walter Church et al., Respondents, v. Thomas L. Randall, Appellant, 1905 — 182 N.Y. 550 · caselaw · US
General
Walter Church et al., Respondents, v. Thomas L. Randall, Appellant
182 N.Y. 550·New York Court of Appeals·1905·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
Walter Church et al., Respondents, v. Thomas L. Randall, Appellant.
(Argued October 2, 1905;
decided October 10, 1905.)
Church v. Randall, 105 App. Div. 636, appeal dismissed.
Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered May 17, 1905, which affirmed a judgment of the Schenectady County Court in favor of plaintiffs entered upon a verdict.
The motion was made upon the ground that the Court of Appeals had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, permission to take the same not having been granted.
W. W. Wemple for motion.
No one opposed.
[MAJORITY]
Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with costs and ten dollars costs of motion.