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 P. Campbell et al., Respondents, v. Hannah Regina Rockwell et al., Defendants. Charles E. Eickhoff et al., Appellants, 1901 — 168 N.Y. 632 · caselaw · US
General
Thomas P. Campbell et al., Respondents, v. Hannah Regina Rockwell et al., Defendants. Charles E. Eickhoff et al., Appellants
168 N.Y. 632·New York Court of Appeals·1901·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 P. Campbell et al., Respondents, v. Hannah Regina Rockwell et al., Defendants. Charles E. Eickhoff et al., Appellants.
Campbell v. Rockwell, 63 App, Div. 366, appeal dismissed.
(Argued October 1, 1901;
decided October 4, 1901.)
Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered June 2é, 1901, affirming an order of Special Term denying a motion to vacate a certain judgment and to admit the appellants herein as parties to the action.
F. De Fysle Smith for appellants.
William H. Stochwell for respondents.
[MAJORITY]
Appeal dismissed, with costs ; no opinion.
Concur: Parker, Oh. J., O’Brien, Bartlett, Haight, Martin, Yann and Landon, JJ.