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.
Mary White, Respondent, v. Charles Hickman, Executor, etc., Appellant, 1876 — 67 N.Y. 601 · caselaw · US
General
Mary White, Respondent, v. Charles Hickman, Executor, etc., Appellant
67 N.Y. 601·New York Court of Appeals·1876·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
Mary White, Respondent, v. Charles Hickman, Executor, etc., Appellant.
(Argued November 23, 1876;
decided December 5, 1876.)
Nathaniel G. Moak for the appellant.
John A. Godfrey for the respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to affirm. Ho opinion.
Judgment affirmed.