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.
Helen E. Edwards, Respondent, v. The Schoharie County National Bank and William C. Lamont, Receiver, etc., Impleaded, etc., Appellants, 1889 — 114 N.Y. 620 · caselaw · US
General
Helen E. Edwards, Respondent, v. The Schoharie County National Bank and William C. Lamont, Receiver, etc., Impleaded, etc., Appellants
114 N.Y. 620·New York Court of Appeals·1889·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
Helen E. Edwards, Respondent, v. The Schoharie County National Bank and William C. Lamont, Receiver, etc., Impleaded, etc., Appellants.
(Argued March 20, 1889;
decided April 16, 1889.)
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered upon an order made the first Tuesday of February, 1888, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered on the report of a ueferee,
E. Countryman for appellants.
Nathaniel G. Moak for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Agree'to affirm; no opinion.
All concur, except Potter and Parker, JJ., not sitting.
Judgment affirmed.