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.
Lizzie Guibert, Respondent, v. Carrie P. Saunders et al., Respondents, William B. Whitman et al., Appellants, 1891 — 124 N.Y. 667 · caselaw · US
General
Lizzie Guibert, Respondent, v. Carrie P. Saunders et al., Respondents, William B. Whitman et al., Appellants
124 N.Y. 667·New York Court of Appeals·1891·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
Lizzie Guibert, Respondent, v. Carrie P. Saunders et al., Respondents, William B. Whitman et al., Appellants.
(Argued March 16, 1891;
decided April 7, 1891.)
Appeal, under section 1336 of the Code of Civil Procedure, from final judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered upon the report of a referee after an affirmance hy the General Term of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, by order made the first Monday of January, 1884, of an interlocutory judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the. court on trial at Special Term.
Echoi/n Countryman for appellants.
James M. Hunt for respondents.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to affirm; no opinion.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.