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.
Charles Remsen et al., as Executors of William Remsen, Deceased, et al., Respondents, v. The Metropolitan Elevated Railway Company et al., Appellants, 1897 — 153 N.Y. 654 · caselaw · US
General
Charles Remsen et al., as Executors of William Remsen, Deceased, et al., Respondents, v. The Metropolitan Elevated Railway Company et al., Appellants
153 N.Y. 654·New York Court of Appeals·1897·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
Charles Remsen et al., as Executors of William Remsen, Deceased, et al., Respondents, v. The Metropolitan Elevated Railway Company et al., Appellants.
Reported below, 9 App. Div. 533.
(Argued May 3, 1897 ;
decided May 11, 1897.)
Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, rendered in November, 1896, which modified and, as modified, affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiffs entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term.
The motion was made upon the ground that the record discloses a unanimous decision of the Appellate Division that there is evidence supporting the findings of fact; and that the exceptions herein are trifling and frivolous.
W. G. Peokham for motion.
Julien T. Drnies and Braina/rd Tolies opposed.
[MAJORITY]
Motion denied, with ten dollars costs.