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
John P. Higgins, Appellant, v. Thomas J. Crichton et al., Respondents
98 N.Y. 626·New York Court of Appeals·1885·NY
opinion. All · All 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
John P. Higgins, Appellant, v. Thomas J. Crichton et al., Respondents.
(Argued December 18, 1884;
decided January 20, 1885.)
Where a judgment is affirmed in this court without an opinion, and without formally adopting the opinion below, it is not to be understood that the affirmance is upon grounds substantially different from those taken below; on the contrary, the inference is the other way, as in case of such a difference the court would deem it proper to state the reason for affirmance .
John Brook Leavitt for appellant.
~ Augustus M. O'Neil for respondents.
[MAJORITY]
rAgree to affirm ; no opinion.
opinion. All
concur. Judgment affirmed;
affirmed; On a motion subsequently made for re-argument the follow- ing mem. was handed down
" The motion for a re-argument in this case seems, from the points of the counsel for the appellant, to have been made under the impression that because the affirmance was not stated to be on the opinion of the court. below, the ground upon which that court based its decision was impliedly overruled, and some different ground must be assumed to have been taken in this court.
court. This is a misapprehension. The affirmance in this court was substantially on the ground stated in the opinion below, of a misjoinder of alleged causes of action by making Close a party defendant, and demanding against him relief which was inde- pendent of the questions raised by the complaint in respect to the other defendants.
defendants. The questions raised on the demurrers were very narrow and not free from difficulty, though they might very easily have been obviated by amendment, but .after having given- the case considerable attention we were of opinion that the conclusion reached by the court below-should
When we affirm without an opinion, and without formally adopting the opinion below, it is not to be understood that the affirmance is on grounds substantially different from those taken below.
In case of such a difference, we should deem it proper to, state the reasons for aflirmance.
The motion should be denied, with $10 costs."
All concur.
Motion denied.