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.
Rebecca J. Bennett, Respondent, v. Catharine M. Vonder Bosch, Appellant, 1898 — 155 N.Y. 693 · caselaw · US
General
Rebecca J. Bennett, Respondent, v. Catharine M. Vonder Bosch, Appellant
155 N.Y. 693·New York Court of Appeals·1898·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
Rebecca J. Bennett, Respondent, v. Catharine M. Vonder Bosch, Appellant.
Bennett v. Vonder Bosch, 26 App. Div. 811, appeal dismissed..
(Argued April 18, 1898;
decided April 18, 1898.)
Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered February 11, 1898, affirming an order of Special Term granting a motion to strike the action from the Special Term calendar on the ground that it is properly triable by jury.
Theodore H. SWkman for appellant.
Robert L. Redfield for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Appeal dismissed, with costs, on the argument.