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.
Susan Latham, Appellant, v. Harriet Bovee et al., Respondents, 1882 — 89 N.Y. 603 · caselaw · US
Administrative
Susan Latham, Appellant, v. Harriet Bovee et al., Respondents
89 N.Y. 603·New York Court of Appeals·1882·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
Susan Latham, Appellant, v. Harriet Bovee et al., Respondents.
(Argued April 14, 1882;
decided April 25, 1882.)
Edwin EL. liisley for appellant.
E. D. Matthews for respondents.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to affirm. Ho opinion.
All concur, except Rapallo, J., absent, and Tract, J., not voting.
Judgment affirmed.