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.
Catherine Taylor, Respondent, v. Washington H. Taylor, Appellant, 1902 — 169 N.Y. 601 · caselaw · US
General
Catherine Taylor, Respondent, v. Washington H. Taylor, Appellant
169 N.Y. 601·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
Catherine Taylor, Respondent, v. Washington H. Taylor, Appellant.
Reported below, 63 App. Div. 331.
(Submitted January 6, 1903;
decided January 14, 1902.)
Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered August 12,1901, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term.
The motion was made upon the grounds that the judgment is not appealable to the Court of Appeals, it having been entered upon a decree of the Special Term and having been unanimously affirmed by the Appellate Division, no permission to appeal having been granted nor questions certified to this court for review, and the defendant’s exceptions are frivolous.
Alexander 8. Bacon for motion.
Cantwell da Moore opposed.
[MAJORITY]
Motion denied, without costs.