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.
The Steamship Richmond Hill Company, Limited, Respondent, v. John C. Seager, Impleaded, Appellant, 1899 — 159 N.Y. 574 · caselaw · US
General
The Steamship Richmond Hill Company, Limited, Respondent, v. John C. Seager, Impleaded, Appellant
159 N.Y. 574·New York Court of Appeals·1899·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
The Steamship Richmond Hill Company, Limited, Respondent, v. John C. Seager, Impleaded, Appellant.
Steamship Richmond Hill Co. v. Seager, 31 App. Div. 288, appeal dismissed.
(Argued June 5, 1899;
decided June 5, 1899.)
Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered July 13,1898, reversing an order of the Special Term vacating and setting aside an execution against the person of the defendant.
Lorenzo Tillo for appellant.
JEseTc Oowen for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Appeal dismissed, with costs, on hearing.