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
Henry W. Hayden, Appellant, v. Catharine T. R. Mathews et al., Respondents
158 N.Y. 735·New York Court of Appeals·1899·NY
All concur, except Babtlett, J., not voting.
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 W. Hayden, Appellant, v. Catharine T. R. Mathews et al., Respondents.
(Argued March 20, 1899;
decided April 18, 1899.)
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered April 25, 1896, upon an order affirming a judgment in favor of defendants entered upon a decision of the court dismissing the complaint on trial at Special Term, and affirming an order granting an additional allowance.
Hayden v. Mathews, 4 App. Div. 338, affirmed.
Henry W. Hayden, appellant, in person.
Morris P. Ferris for respondents.
[MAJORITY]
Judgment and order affirmed, with costs, on opinion of Mebwin, J., below.
All concur, except Babtlett, J., not voting.