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.
Andrew J. Applebee et al., as Executors, etc., Plaintiffs, v. William Duke, Appellant, et al., Respondents, 1893 — 139 N.Y. 621 · caselaw · US
General
Andrew J. Applebee et al., as Executors, etc., Plaintiffs, v. William Duke, Appellant, et al., Respondents
139 N.Y. 621·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
Andrew J. Applebee et al., as Executors, etc., Plaintiffs, v. William Duke, Appellant, et al., Respondents.
(Argued October 2, 1893;
decided October 17, 1893.)
Appeal from order of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the fifth judicial department, made January 18, 1893, which affirmed an order of Special Term directing a discovery of books, etc., of a copartnership firm formerly composed of Joseph & William Duke.
George H. Blackman for appellant.
Charles S. Cary, guardian ad litem, for Hanford Duke and Myron Duke, respondents.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to dismiss appeal; no opinion;
All concur:
Appeal dismissed.