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.
Sarah Clark, Respondent, v. Charles Bird, Appellant, 1902 — 171 N.Y. 700 · caselaw · US
General
Sarah Clark, Respondent, v. Charles Bird, Appellant
171 N.Y. 700·New York Court of Appeals·1902·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
Sarah Clark, Respondent, v. Charles Bird, Appellant.
Clark v. Bird, 66 App. Div. 384, appeal dismissed.
(Submitted June 24, 1902;
decided June 27, 1902.)
Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered November 20, 1901, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at an Equity Term.
The motion was made on the grounds that no questions of law were involved in the appeal and that the judgment was not appealable to the Court of Appeals.
Frank J. Hone for motion.
W. A. Sutherland opposed.
[MAJORITY]
Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with costs.