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.
Amariah A. Taft, Appellant, v. Caroline M. Wright et al., Respondents, 1875 — 59 N.Y. 656 · caselaw · US
General
Amariah A. Taft, Appellant, v. Caroline M. Wright et al., Respondents
59 N.Y. 656·New York Court of Appeals·1875·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
Amariah A. Taft, Appellant, v. Caroline M. Wright et al., Respondents.
(Argued December 18, 1874;
decided January 19, 1875.)
This action was brought to enforce an equitable lien claimed by plaintiff as creditor of John B. .Wright, deceased, upon the proceeds of certain real estate alleged to have been conveyed by him through a third person to defendant Caroline, his wife, in fraud of his creditors. Decided upon the facts of the case. (Reported below, 2 N. Y. S. C. [T. & C.], 614.)
Addison Brown for the appellant.
Amasa J. Parker for the respondents.
[MAJORITY — Grover, J.,]
Grover, J.,
reads for affirmance of order of General Term, and for j udgment absolute against plaintiff. •
All concur.
Order affirmed and judgment accordingly.