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.
Alvin F. Nims, Respondent, v. Edwin A. Merritt, Jr., et al., Appellants, 1904 — 177 N.Y. 582 · caselaw · US
General
Alvin F. Nims, Respondent, v. Edwin A. Merritt, Jr., et al., Appellants
177 N.Y. 582·New York Court of Appeals·1904·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
Alvin F. Nims, Respondent, v. Edwin A. Merritt, Jr., et al., Appellants.
Reported below, 84 App. Div. 632.
(Argued February 8, 1904;
decided February 16, 1904.)
Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered May 29, 1903, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon the report of a referee.
The motion was made upon the grounds that the Court of Appeals had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal; that no question of law was involved; that the exceptions were frivolous; that the appeal was taken for the purpose of delay; that the decision of the Appellate Division was unanimous and no leave to appeal had been granted.
Henry Purcell for motion.
Lowen F. Ginn opposed.
[MAJORITY]
Motion denied, with ten dollars costs.