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.
William W. Armfield, Respondent, v. The Town of Solon, Appellant, 1893 — 136 N.Y. 663 · caselaw · US
General
William W. Armfield, Respondent, v. The Town of Solon, Appellant
136 N.Y. 663·New York Court of Appeals·1893·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
William W. Armfield, Respondent, v. The Town of Solon, Appellant.
(Argued December 9, 1892;
decided January 17, 1893.)
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered upon an order made April 26, 1892, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Circuit without a jury.
The following is the mem. of decision handed down hy the court:
“ The complaint in this case shows that plaintiff was the owner of the bonds from which the coupons sued on were cut.
“ On authority of Savings Bank case, the judgment should be modified by deducting therefrom eight hundred and eighty dollars and sixty cents, and, as modified, affirmed, without costs to either party in this court.”
Williamsburgh Savings Bank v. Town of Solon (ante, page 465).
[MAJORITY]
All concur.
Judgment accordingly.