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.
Seba Jane Gedney, Appellant, v. Daniel Rogers, Respondent, 1887 — 107 N.Y. 625 · caselaw · US
General
Seba Jane Gedney, Appellant, v. Daniel Rogers, Respondent
107 N.Y. 625·New York Court of Appeals·1887·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
Seba Jane Gedney, Appellant, v. Daniel Rogers, Respondent.
(Argued June 27, 1887;
decided October 11, 1887.)
Erastus P. Hart for appellant.
E Countryman, for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to affirm on opinion at Special Term.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.