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.
John Storm et al., Respondents, v. Phenix Insurance Company of Brooklyn, N. Y., Appellant, 1892 — 133 N.Y. 656 · caselaw · US
General
John Storm et al., Respondents, v. Phenix Insurance Company of Brooklyn, N. Y., Appellant
133 N.Y. 656·New York Court of Appeals·1892·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
John Storm et al., Respondents, v. Phenix Insurance Company of Brooklyn, N. Y., Appellant.
(Argued April 26, 1892;
decided May 24, 1892.)
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department entered upon an order made July 1, 1891, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiffs entered upon the verdict of a jury and also affirmed an order denying a motion for a new trial.
A. 3. 8cmyer for appellant.
Watson M. Rogers for respondents.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to affirm; no opinion.
All concur, except Andrews, J., not voting
Judgment affirmed.