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
Russell H. Hoadley et al., Respondents, v. Hipolito Dumois et al., Appellants
155 N.Y. 630·New York Court of Appeals·1898·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
Russell H. Hoadley et al., Respondents, v. Hipolito Dumois et al., Appellants.
Hoadley v. Dumois, 11 Mise. Rep. 52, affirmed.
(Argued January 12, 1898;
decided February 1, 1898.)
Appeal from a judgment of the General Term of the late Superior Court of the city of New York, entered January 11, 1895, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiffs entered upon a verdict.
Edward B. Whitney and Henry W. Goodrich for appellants.
Everett P. Wheeler for respondents.
[MAJORITY]
Judgment affirmed, with costs, on opinion below.
All concur, except Haight, J., absent.