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.
Thomas C. Avery, Respondent, v. William H. Starbuck, Appellant, 1891 — 127 N.Y. 675 · caselaw · US
General
Thomas C. Avery, Respondent, v. William H. Starbuck, Appellant
127 N.Y. 675·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
Thomas C. Avery, Respondent, v. William H. Starbuck, Appellant.
(Argued June 5, 1891;
decided June 23, 1891.)
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Superior Court of the city of Hew York, entered upon an order made June 10,1889, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and affirmed an order denying a motion for a new trial.
The questions discussed in this case were simply as to the reception of evidence, which were disposed of, in view of the circumstances appearing in the case, without the presentation of any point of general interest
George U. Adams for appellant.
Joseph H. Mosher for respondent.
[MAJORITY — Haight, J.,]
Haight, J.,
reads for affirmance.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.