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.
Central Trust Company of New York, Respondent, v. Mary H. Barse et al., Appellants, 1899 — 158 N.Y. 719 · caselaw · US
General
Central Trust Company of New York, Respondent, v. Mary H. Barse et al., Appellants
158 N.Y. 719·New York Court of Appeals·1899·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
Central Trust Company of New York, Respondent, v. Mary H. Barse et al., Appellants.
(Submitted March 13, 1899;
decided March 24, 1899.)
Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered January 13,1898, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon an order of Special Term striking out the first two defenses in the answer of defendants as sham, and ordering judgment for the plaintiff upon the third defense as frivolous.
The motion was made upon the ground that no question of law is involved in the appeal, and that the order below was discretionary.
Central Trust Co. of New York v. Barse, 24 App. Div. 624, appeal dismissed.
Butler, Ffotman, Joline & Mynderse, Franlc Sullivan Smith and Arthur II. Fan Brunt for motion.
No one opposed.
[MAJORITY]
Motion to dismiss appeal granted, and appeal dismissed, without costs.