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.
Alexander M. White et al., Respondents, v. James E. Dutcher, as Sheriff, etc., Appellant, 1888 — 109 N.Y. 619 · caselaw · US
General
Alexander M. White et al., Respondents, v. James E. Dutcher, as Sheriff, etc., Appellant
109 N.Y. 619·New York Court of Appeals·1888·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
Alexander M. White et al., Respondents, v. James E. Dutcher, as Sheriff, etc., Appellant
(Argued March 5, 1888;
decided March 20, 1888.)
Appeal from order of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, made December 15, 1885, which affirmed an order granting a new trial.
Daniel Clark Briggs for appellant.
Thomas S. Moore for respondents.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to affirm, and for judgment absolute for appellant ■on stipulation ; no opinion.
All concur.
Order affirmed and judgment accordingly.