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.
Bartholomew Devaney, Respondent, v. The Degnon-McLean Construction Company, Appellant, 1903 — 175 N.Y. 498 · caselaw · US
General
Bartholomew Devaney, Respondent, v. The Degnon-McLean Construction Company, Appellant
175 N.Y. 498·New York Court of Appeals·1903·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
Bartholomew Devaney, Respondent, v. The DegnonMcLean Construction Company, Appellant.
Reported below, 79 App. Div. 62.
(Submitted June 1, 1903;
decided June 5, 1903.)
Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department entered January 26, 1903, 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 record presents no question that can be reviewed by the Court of Appeals and that the order allowing said appeal was obtained without notice of the application therefor to the respondent’s attorney
George W. Roderick for motion.
Nadal, Smyth, Carérre & Trafford opposed.
[MAJORITY]
Motion denied, with ten dollars costs.