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.
General
Adelaide A. Hillyer, Appellant, v. Mary Ann Vandewater et al., Respondents
121 N.Y. 681·New York Court of Appeals·1890·NY
Peckham and O’Brien, JJ., 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
Adelaide A. Hillyer, Appellant, v. Mary Ann Vandewater et al., Respondents.
(Argued February 37, 1890;
decided June 3, 1890.)
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered upon an order made April 4,1888, which affirmed a judgment in favor of defendants entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term.
This case is not reported for the reason that a majority of the court did not concur in either opinion.
Theodore F. Miller for, appellant.
Louis Marshall for respondents.
[MAJORITY — Finch and Gray, JJ., Earl, J.,]
Finch and Gray, JJ.,
read for affirmance, and Ruger, Ch. J., and Andrews, J., concur in result.
Earl, J.,
reads for reversal.
Peckham and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
Judgment affirmed.