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.
Harriet M. Wait, as Executrix, etc., et al., Respondents, v. Sarah A. Cerqua et al., Appellants, 1889 — 117 N.Y. 654 · caselaw · US
General
Harriet M. Wait, as Executrix, etc., et al., Respondents, v. Sarah A. Cerqua et al., Appellants
117 N.Y. 654·New York Court of Appeals·1889·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
Harriet M. Wait, as Executrix, etc., et al., Respondents, v. Sarah A. Cerqua et al., Appellants.
(Submitted December 3, 1889;
decided December 17, 1889.)
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the •Supreme Court in the second judicial department, in favor of plaintiff, entered upon an order made February 15,1889, upon .a case submitted under section 1274 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
William D. Veeder for appellants.
Howard St. C. Wait for respondents.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to affirm; no opinion.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.