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.
Property · MBE-tested
George W. Carpenter, as Executor, etc., Respondent, v. Carrie M. Mosher et al., Appellants
125 N.Y. 736·New York Court of Appeals·1891·NY
All concur, except Rugkeb, Ch. 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
George W. Carpenter, as Executor, etc., Respondent, v. Carrie M. Mosher et al., Appellants.
(Argued February 2, 1891;
decided February 6, 1891.)
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme-Court in the second judicial department, entered upon an order made May 14, 1890, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court' on trial at Special Term.
This action was brought to vacate and set aside two deeds-on the ground of fraud and undue influence.
Gilbert 0. Pulse and Charles P. Roosevelt for appellants..
John P. Glapp for respondent.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam mem.]
The following is the mem. of opinion :
“As to the appellant Carrie Mosher, there was evidence-upon which the trial court could find for the plaintiff, and as-to her the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
“ As to the appellant William A. Mosher there is no proof warranting his joinder as a party defendant in such an action, and the finding of the trial court was, in fact, that he had no-interest in the premises described in the complaint. It was error, therefore, to deny the motions, made in his behalf, for a dismissal of the complaint and for a nonsuit, and the judgments entered against him should be reversed and judgment entered dismissing the complaint as to him, with costs in all the courts.”
Per Curiam mem.
for affirmance of judgment as to defendant Carrie M. Mosher, and for a reversal as to defendant William A. Mosher.
All concur, except Rugkeb, Ch. J., not voting.
Judgment accordingly!