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.
Nicholas Espenscheid, Administrator of Barbara Espenscheid, Appellant, v. Frederick Espenscheid et al., Respondents, 1899 — 158 N.Y. 732 · caselaw · US
General
Nicholas Espenscheid, Administrator of Barbara Espenscheid, Appellant, v. Frederick Espenscheid et al., Respondents
158 N.Y. 732·New York Court of Appeals·1899·NY
All concur.
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
Nicholas Espenscheid, Administrator of Barbara Espenscheid, Appellant, v. Frederick Espenscheid et al., Respondents.
(Argued March 17, 1899;
decided April 18, 1899.)
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in 'the fourth judicial department, entered February 27, 1896, affirming a judgment in favor of defendants entered upon a decision of the court dismissing the complaint on trial at Special Term.
Espenscheid v. Espenscheid, 2 App. Div. 615, affirmed.
Stephen K. Williams and Byron G. Williams for appellant.
Edson W. Hamm for respondents.
[MAJORITY]
Judgment affirmed, with costs ; no opinion.
All concur.