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.
James M. Johnson et al., Appellants, v. Henry W. Bates et al., Respondents, 1893 — 139 N.Y. 650 · caselaw · US
General
James M. Johnson et al., Appellants, v. Henry W. Bates et al., Respondents
139 N.Y. 650·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
James M. Johnson et al., Appellants, v. Henry W. Bates et al., Respondents.
(Argued October 4, 1893;
decided October 24, 1893.)
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the City Court of Brooklyn, entered upon an order made July 12, 1892, which affirmed a judgment in favor of defendants entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term.
Ira Leo Bamberger for appellants.
F. H Cowdrey for respondents.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to affirm on ground of revocation of will by subsequent marriage; no opinion.
AH concur.
Judgment