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.
David F. O'Connor, Respondent, v. Sewannee M. Stevenson et al., Appellants, 1900 — 163 N.Y. 592 · caselaw · US
General
David F. O'Connor, Respondent, v. Sewannee M. Stevenson et al., Appellants
163 N.Y. 592·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
David F. O’Connor, Respondent, v. Sewannee M. Stevenson et al., Appellants.
O' Oonnor v. Stevenson, 49 App. Div. 630, appeal dismissed.
(Argued June 4, 1900;
decided June 12, 1900.)
Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered March 12, 1900, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict, and an order denying a motion for a new trial.
The motion was made upon the grounds that the Appellate Division has unanimously decided that the verdict of the jury is supported by the evidence, and that the exceptions raise no question of law which can be reviewed by this court.
Luther W. Emerson for motion.
William G. McGrea opposed.
[MAJORITY]
Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with costs.