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.
Zenas W. Mitchell, Appellant, v. Charles H. Mitchell et al., Respondents, 1879 — 77 N.Y. 596 · caselaw · US
Administrative
Zenas W. Mitchell, Appellant, v. Charles H. Mitchell et al., Respondents
77 N.Y. 596·New York Court of Appeals·1879·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
Zenas W. Mitchell, Appellant, v. Charles H. Mitchell et al., Respondents.
(Argued January 16, 1879;
decided April 8, 1879.)
Reported below 16 Hun, 97.
J. 8. L’Amoreaux for appellant.
Wl B. French for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to affirm without opinion.
Church, Ch. J., Folger, Andrews and Earl, JJ., concurring ; Rapadlo, J., reads dissenting opinion for reversal of General Term and affirmance of decree of surrogate; Miller and Danforth, JJ., concur.
Judgment affirmed.