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 Fox, by Guardian ad Litem, Respondent, v. Joseph Le Comte, Appellant, 1897 — 153 N.Y. 680 · caselaw · US
General
William Fox, by Guardian ad Litem, Respondent, v. Joseph Le Comte, Appellant
153 N.Y. 680·New York Court of Appeals·1897·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 Fox, by Guardian ad Litem, Respondent, v. Joseph Le Comte, Appellant.
Fox v. Le Comte, 2 App. Div. 61, affirmed.
(Argued June 16, 1897;
decided October 5, 1897.)
Appeal, by permission, from a judgment of the Appellate' Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered February 17, 1896, which affirmed a judgment of the City Court of Brooklyn in favor of plaintiff, entered upon a verdict, and also affirmed an order denying a motion for a new trial.
Flamen B. Candler and Egerton L. Winthrogi, Jr., for appellant.
Charles J. Patterson for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Judgment affirmed on opinion below, with costs.
All concur, except Gray, J., absent.