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.
Otis Corbett, Respondent, v. The Spring Garden Insurance Company, Appellant, 1899 — 160 N.Y. 670 · caselaw · US
General
Otis Corbett, Respondent, v. The Spring Garden Insurance Company, Appellant
160 N.Y. 670·New York Court of Appeals·1899·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
Otis Corbett, Respondent, v. The Spring Garden Insurance Company, Appellant.
(Submitted October 2, 1899;
decided October 10, 1899.)
Reported below, 40 App. Div. 628.
Motion to place upon the present calendar an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered May 23, 1899, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a v.erdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial.
The motion was made upon the grounds: 1. That this is the second appeal in the case; the return on the first appeal was filed April 27,1895, a calendar having been made up January 14, 1895, and was placed upon the calendar made up January 18,1897; a new trial was ordered and the return in the present appeal was filed September 7, 1899, the present calendar having been made up March 13, 1899; that section 195 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not necessarily apply to the next calendar after the- return is filed, but may be construed to apply to the present calendar.
2. That one of the witnesses for respondent is of an age that indicates a possibility of his death before a new trial could be •had in case one should be ordered by the Court of Appeals
Lenehan & Dowley for motion.
Cardozo & Nathan, opposed.
[MAJORITY]
Motion denied, without costs.