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.
Willis T. Honsinger et al., Respondents, v. John Mulford, Appellant, 1898 — 157 N.Y. 674 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
Willis T. Honsinger et al., Respondents, v. John Mulford, Appellant
157 N.Y. 674·New York Court of Appeals·1898·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
Willis T. Honsinger et al., Respondents, v. John Mulford, Appellant.
Sonsinger v. Mulford, 90 Hun, 589, affirmed.
(Argued October 10, 1898;
decided October 18, 1898.)
Appeal from a judgment and order of the late General Term of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, ■entered December 14, 1895, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiffs entered upon a verdict, and an order denying a motion for a new trial.
T. F. Conway for appellant.
L. L. Shedden for respondents.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
We think this case should be affirmed upon the prevailing opinion below and upon our decision in Matthews v. Matthews (154 N. Y. 288), an authority precisely in point upon the necessity of pleading the defense of the Statute of Frauds, in order that it may be available upon the trial to defeat the validity of the contract sued upon by the plaintiff upon that ground.
Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
All concur.