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.
Josephine H. Hubbard, Respondent, v. Mary L. Housley et al., Respondents; Mitchell A. C. Levy, Purchaser, Appellant, 1899 — 160 N.Y. 688 · caselaw · US
General
Josephine H. Hubbard, Respondent, v. Mary L. Housley et al., Respondents; Mitchell A. C. Levy, Purchaser, Appellant
160 N.Y. 688·New York Court of Appeals·1899·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
Josephine H. Hubbard, Respondent, v. Mary L. Housley et al., Respondents; Mitchell A. C. Levy, Purchaser, Appellant
(Argued October 3, 1899;
decided October 17, 1899.)
Hubbard v. Housley, 43 App. Div. 129, affirmed.
Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered August 7, 1899, affirming an order of Special Term requiring the purchaser at a partition sale to complete his purchase.
John, Frankenheimer for appellant
Henry Schmitt for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Order affirmed, with costs: no opinion.
All concur.