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.
Patrick Ivers, Appellant, v. Minnesota Dock Company, Respondent, 1904 — 179 N.Y. 513 · caselaw · US
General
Patrick Ivers, Appellant, v. Minnesota Dock Company, Respondent
179 N.Y. 513·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
Patrick Ivers, Appellant, v. Minnesota Dock Company, Respondent.
Ixers v. Minnesota Pock Co., 84. App. Div. 27 appeal dismissed.
(Submitted May 31, 1904;
decided June 7, 1904.)
Motion to dismiss an appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered May 14, 1903, which reversed a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial and granted a new trial.
The motion was made upon the ground that the appeal was not perfected within the time required by law.
Frank Gibbons for motion.
[MAJORITY]
No one opposed. .
■ Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with costs and ten 'dollars costs of motion.