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.
Henry Wittenbrock, Respondent, v. L. Mabins et al., 1890 — 123 N.Y. 638 · caselaw · US
General
Henry Wittenbrock, Respondent, v. L. Mabins et al.
123 N.Y. 638·New York Court of Appeals·1890·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
Henry Wittenbrock, Respondent, v. L. Mabins et al.
(Argued October 6, 1890;
decided October 14, 1890.)
Appeal by Egbert ITcbtmann from order of the General Term of the Supreme Court, in the first" judicial department, made June 9, 1890, which affirmed an order of Special Term denying a motion to vacate a subpoena directing appellant to appear and testify before a commission appointed to take his deposition.
Henry C. Willcox for appellant.
A. B. Porter for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to dismiss appeal; no opinion.
All concur.
Appeal dismissed.