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.
In the Matter of the Application of The Attorney-General for an Order for the Examination of Witnesses under the Provisions of Chapter 383 of the Laws of 1897 ; The Attorney-General, Appellant; Samuel Sloan, Respondent, 1898 — 155 N.Y. 692 · caselaw · US
General
In the Matter of the Application of The Attorney-General for an Order for the Examination of Witnesses under the Provisions of Chapter 383 of the Laws of 1897 ; The Attorney-General, Appellant; Samuel Sloan, Respondent
155 N.Y. 692·New York Court of Appeals·1898·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
In the Matter of the Application of The Attorney-General for an Order for the Examination of Witnesses under the Provisions of Chapter 383 of the Laws of 1897 ; The Attorney-General, Appellant; Samuel Sloan, Respondent.
Matter of Attorney-General, 22 App. Div. 285, appeal dismissed.
(Argued March 2, 1898;
decided April 19, 1898.)
Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the third judicial. departmen t, entered • November 20, 1897, affirming an order of a justice of the Supreme Court vacating, on motion of Samuel Sloan, an order made by such justice exporte on the 12th day of May, 1897, requiring Sloan to appear and submit to an examination before the bringing of an action under the psovisions of chapter 383 of the Laws of 1897.
This case was argued and decided with Matter of Attorney-General {ante, p. 441).
T. E. ILa/neoeTc, J: Newton Fiero and John O. Dmies for appellant;
Darid Me 0lure for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Appeal dismissed, with costs.
All concur.