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.
Charles H. Smith, Respondent, v. Matilda F. Lockwood et al., as Executors, etc., Appellants, 1892 — 136 N.Y. 654 · caselaw · US
General
Charles H. Smith, Respondent, v. Matilda F. Lockwood et al., as Executors, etc., Appellants
136 N.Y. 654·New York Court of Appeals·1892·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
Charles H. Smith, Respondent, v. Matilda F. Lockwood et al., as Executors, etc., Appellants.
(Submitted December 9, 1892;
decided December 23, 1892.)
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Superior Court of the city of New York, entered upon an order made the first Monday of April, 1892, which overruled defendant’s exceptions, and ordered judgment in favor of plaintiff upon a verdict.
L. L. Yarn Allen for appellants.
George L. Cheney for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to affirm; no opinion.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.