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.
Robert H. Pearson, Respondent, v. John J. Collins, Jr., as Executor of David Pearson, Deceased, Defendant, and St. Mary's Hospital of the City of Brooklyn, Appellant, Impleaded with Others, 1907 — 187 N.Y. 530 · caselaw · US
General
Robert H. Pearson, Respondent, v. John J. Collins, Jr., as Executor of David Pearson, Deceased, Defendant, and St. Mary's Hospital of the City of Brooklyn, Appellant, Impleaded with Others
187 N.Y. 530·New York Court of Appeals·1907·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
Robert H. Pearson, Respondent, v. John J. Collins, Jr., as Executor of David Pearson, Deceased, Defendant, and St. Mary’s Hospital of the City of Brooklyn, Appellant, Impleaded with Others.
Pearson v. Collins, 113 App. Div. 657, appeal dismissed.
(Argued January 7, 1907;
decided January 15, 1907.)
Motion to dismiss an appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered June 25, 1906, which affirmed ah interlocutory •judgment of Special Term overruling a demurrer to the complaint.
The motion was made upon the ground that the Court of Appeals had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.
Omar Powell for motion.
John R. Kuhn opposed.
[MAJORITY]
Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with costs and ten dollars costs of motion, on the ground that the judgment sought to be reviewed is simply an interlocutory judgment.