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.
Mary Rebecca Murphy, Individually and as Executrix of Frederick G. Murphy, Deceased, Appellant, v. William E. Murphy, Individually and as Executor of Thomas J. Murphy, Deceased, Respondent, 1901 — 167 N.Y. 604 · caselaw · US
General
Mary Rebecca Murphy, Individually and as Executrix of Frederick G. Murphy, Deceased, Appellant, v. William E. Murphy, Individually and as Executor of Thomas J. Murphy, Deceased, Respondent
167 N.Y. 604·New York Court of Appeals·1901·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
Mary Rebecca Murphy, Individually and as Executrix of Frederick G. Murphy, Deceased, Appellant, v. William E. Murphy, Individually and as Executor of Thomas J. Murphy, Deceased, Respondent.
(Submitted May 17, 1901;
decided June 4, 1901.)
Murphy v. Murphy, 44 App. Div. 546, affirmed.
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered November 25, 1899, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a verdict directed by the court.
Robert H. Roy and John Naumer for appellant.
William N. Dykman for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
Concur: Parker, Ch. J., Gray, O’Brien, Martin, Landon and Werner, JJ. Not sitting: Cullen, J.