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.
Contracts · MBE-tested
James Binns, Respondent, v. Mary E. S. Williams, as Executrix, etc., Appellant
88 N.Y. 660·New York Court of Appeals·1882·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
James Binns, Respondent, v. Mary E. S. Williams, as Executrix, etc., Appellant.
(Argued February 9, 1882;
decided March 24, 1882.)
This action was brought against defendant as executrix of the will of Aras G. Williams, late sheriff of the county of Kings, to recover for goods levied upon by said testator by virtue of an execution against the Steiner Gas-light Manufacturing Company. Plaintiff claimed title under two agreements between him and said company. Defendant .claimed that under the contracts the title was not absolutely transferred, but that the company had still a leviable interest. The court held, that under the agreements plaintiff became vested with absolute title, and therefore that defendant was liable;
Samuel A. Noyes for appellant.
Samuel Morris for respondent.
[MAJORITY — Miller, J.,]
Miller, J.,
reads for affirmance; Earl and Daneorth, JJ.; concur; Andrews, Ch. J.-, and Finch, J., concur in result; Tract, J., took no part; Rapallo, J., absent
Judgment affirmed.