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.
Ward C. Oille et al., Appellants, v. C. Julia Rodger et al., as Administrators of the Estate of William C. Rodger, Deceased, Respondents, 1902 — 170 N.Y. 618 · caselaw · US
General
Ward C. Oille et al., Appellants, v. C. Julia Rodger et al., as Administrators of the Estate of William C. Rodger, Deceased, Respondents
170 N.Y. 618·New York Court of Appeals·1902·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
Ward C. Oille et al., Appellants, v. C. Julia Rodger et al., as Administrators of the Estate of William C. Rodger, Deceased, Respondents.
Oille v. Rodger, 61 App. Div. 612, affirmed.
(Argued March 6, 1902;
decided April 8, 1902.)
Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered April 6, 1901, reversing a judgment in favor of plaintiffs entered upon the report of a referee and granting a new trial.
Thomas H. Smith for appellants.
Homer Weston for respondents.
[MAJORITY]
Order affirmed and judgment absolute ordered for defendants on the stipulation, with costs; no opinion.
Concur; Pabk.ee, Ch. J., Gbay, O’Bbien, Maetin, Cullen and Webneb, JJ. Not voting: Vann, J.