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.
Patrick Cassidy et al. Respondents, v. Joseph McFarland et al., Appellants, 1893 — 138 N.Y. 614 · caselaw · US
General
Patrick Cassidy et al. Respondents, v. Joseph McFarland et al., Appellants
138 N.Y. 614·New York Court of Appeals·1893·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
Patrick Cassidy et al. Respondents, v. Joseph McFarland et al., Appellants.
(Submitted April 10, 1893;
decided April 18, 1893.)
Motion for reargument of an appeal from order of the General Term of the Court of Common Pleas in and for the city and county of New York, made the first Monday of November, 1892, which affirmed an order of Special Term, appointing a referee. (137 N. Y. 609.)
Geo. A. /Stearns for motion.
W. B. Cowles opposed.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to grant motion; no opinion.
All concur.
Motion granted.