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 Mitchell, as Executor, etc., Respondent, v. David H. Knapp, Executor, etc., Impleaded, etc., Appellant, 1891 — 124 N.Y. 654 · caselaw · US
General
John Mitchell, as Executor, etc., Respondent, v. David H. Knapp, Executor, etc., Impleaded, etc., Appellant
124 N.Y. 654·New York Court of Appeals·1891·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 Mitchell, as Executor, etc., Respondent, v. David H. Knapp, Executor, etc., Impleaded, etc., Appellant.
(Argued February 26, 1891;
decided March 10, 1891.)
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered upon an order made November 26,1889, which affirmed a judgment construing the will of Mary E. Griffin, deceased, entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term. •
George W. Bay for appellant.
Howard I). Newton for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to affirm on opinion below.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.