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.
William R. Bole, Respondent, v. Noah Cook et al., Appellants, 1871 — 46 N.Y. 691 · caselaw · US
General
William R. Bole, Respondent, v. Noah Cook et al., Appellants
46 N.Y. 691·New York Court of Appeals·1871·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
William R. Bole, Respondent, v. Noah Cook et al., Appellants.
Decided upon the ground that the objections on the trial to the reception of evidence (alleged as error) were insufficient to present the questions.
(Argued November 22, 1871;
decided November 28, 1871.)
C. D. Mwrray, for appellants.
W. Woodbwry, for respondent.
[MAJORITY — Gboveb, J.,]
Gboveb, J.,
reads opinion for affirmance.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.