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.
Elizabeth Freeman, Respondent, v. Peter Lorillard et al., Appellants, 1874 — 61 N.Y. 612 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
Elizabeth Freeman, Respondent, v. Peter Lorillard et al., Appellants
61 N.Y. 612·New York Commission of Appeals·1874·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
Elizabeth Freeman, Respondent, v. Peter Lorillard et al., Appellants.
(Argued May 14, 1874;
decided September term, 1874.)
This action was brought to recover $2,000, the consideration expressed in an assignment by plaintiff to defendants, of her interest in the property of the firm of W. P. Harrison & Co., composed of Harrison and herself. Said firm being largely indebted to defendants, Harrison, on behalf of the firm, assigned all its property to defendant Lorillard, and thereafter plaintiff executed the assignment above mentioned. Defendants set up as a counter-claim, and offered proof on the trial to sustain the same, showing the indebtedness of plaintiff’s firm to them, and that it exceeded the value of the assigned property. This evidence was rejected. Held, no error; that it was not a proper counter-claim.
G. Tillotson for the appellants.
Abram Wakeman for the respondent.
[MAJORITY — Reynolds, C.,]
Reynolds, C.,
reads for affirmance.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.