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.
Joseph E. McAllaster et al., Respondents, v. Emeline P. Britton, Appellant, 1904 — 177 N.Y. 546 · caselaw · US
General
Joseph E. McAllaster et al., Respondents, v. Emeline P. Britton, Appellant
177 N.Y. 546·New York Court of Appeals·1904·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
Joseph E. McAllaster et al., Respondents, v. Emeline P. Britton, Appellant.
McAllaster v. Britton, 67 App. Div. 627, affirmed.
(Argued December 11, 1903;
decided January 5, 1904.)
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered February 11, 1902, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiffs entered upon the report of a referee.
Joseph George for appellant.
John F. Gook for respondents.
[MAJORITY]
Judgment affirmed, with cdsts; no opinion.
Concur: Parker, Ch. J., Gray, O’Brien, Bartlett, Haight and Martin, JJ. Absent: Cullen, J.