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
George A. Mitchell et al., Appellants, v. Samuel Archer et al., Respondents
149 N.Y. 578·New York Court of Appeals·1896·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
George A. Mitchell et al., Appellants, v. Samuel Archer et al., Respondents.
Mitchell v. Archer, 78 Hun, 613, affirmed.
(Argued April 9, 1896;
decided April 28, 1896.)
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered upon an order made May. 14,1894, which affirmed a judgment in favor of defendants entered upon- the decision of the court at Special Term, a jury having been waived.
S. H. Thayer for appellants.
William Riley for respondents.
[MAJORITY]
Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
All concur.