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.
Edward S. Stokes, as Receiver of The Hoffman House, Respondent, v. The Hoffman House of New York, Appellant, 1900 — 162 N.Y. 620 · caselaw · US
General
Edward S. Stokes, as Receiver of The Hoffman House, Respondent, v. The Hoffman House of New York, Appellant
162 N.Y. 620·New York Court of Appeals·1900·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
Edward S. Stokes, as Receiver of The Hoffman House, Respondent, v. The Hoffman House of New York, Appellant.
Reported below, 46 App. Div. 120.
(Submitted March 12, 1900;
decided March 20, 1900.)
Motion to put on calendar and prefer an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, in the first judicial department, entered January 2, 1900, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon the report of a referee.
The motion was made upon the grounds that the pendency of this action prevents the winding up oí the affairs of the receivership herein, and that it is of the highest importance to all parties and the interests of justice require the speedy determination of the appeal.
Carter, Hughes & Dwight for motion.
Turner, McClure & Rolston opposed.
[MAJORITY]
Motion to put on calendar and prefer denied, with ten dollars costs.