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.
Francis J. Moissen, Appellant, v. Adolphe A. Kloster et al., as Executors, etc., Respondents, 1889 — 114 N.Y. 638 · caselaw · US
General
Francis J. Moissen, Appellant, v. Adolphe A. Kloster et al., as Executors, etc., Respondents
114 N.Y. 638·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
Francis J. Moissen, Appellant, v. Adolphe A. Kloster et al., as Executors, etc., Respondents.
(Argued June 13, 1889;
decided June 25, 1889.)
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme - Court in the second judicial department, entered upon an order ■.made February 9, 1886, which affirmed a judgment in favor -of defendants, entered upon the report of a referee.
The principal questions presented in this case were in reference to the pleadings and practice, some of which were dis- tj posed of on the ground that there were no proper exceptions presenting them; the others are not considered of sufficient general interest to require a report of the case.
Francis J. Moissen, appellant, in person.
Edward Dooley for respondents.
[MAJORITY — Potter J.,]
Potter J.,
reads for affirmance.
All concur, except Vann and Brown, JJ., not voting.
Judgment affirmed.