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.
Alice M. Hoar et al., by Guardian, etc., Appellant v. William H. H. Hoar, Respondent, 1889 — 117 N.Y. 633 · caselaw · US
General
Alice M. Hoar et al., by Guardian, etc., Appellant v. William H. H. Hoar, Respondent
117 N.Y. 633·New York Court of Appeals·1889·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
Alice M. Hoar et al., by Guardian, etc., Appellant v. William H. H. Hoar, Respondent.
(Argued October 21, 1889;
decided October 29, 1889.)
Motion to dismiss appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered upon an order made at the May Term, 1888, which affirmed a judgment in favor of defendant, entered upon a verdict.
T. F. Bush for motion.
Henry Daily, Jr., opposed.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to grant motion unless attorney for appellant, within ten days, give attorney for respondent proper notice of justification of sureties; and if sureties are rejected furnish others as provided by law, in which case motion is denied.
All concur.
Ordered accordingly.