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 W. Osborn et al., as Executors of Ezra A. Osborn, Deceased, Respondents, v. The Montelac Park et al.; Chester Huntington, as Receiver, etc., Appellant, 1897 — 153 N.Y. 672 · caselaw · US
General
Mary W. Osborn et al., as Executors of Ezra A. Osborn, Deceased, Respondents, v. The Montelac Park et al.; Chester Huntington, as Receiver, etc., Appellant
153 N.Y. 672·New York Court of Appeals·1897·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 W. Osborn et al., as Executors of Ezra A. Osborn, Deceased, Respondents, v. The Montelac Park et al.; Chester Huntington, as Receiver, etc., Appellant.
Osborn v. Montelac Park, 89 Hun, 167, affirmed.
(Argued June 11, 1897;
decided June 25, 1897.)
Appeal from a judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered November 153, 1895, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiffs entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term.
Francis Lawton and Charles 8. Noyes for appellant.
Eldon Bisbee for respondents.
[MAJORITY]
Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
All concur, except Gray, J., absent.