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 Hayes, Respondent, v. Catharine E. Rabold, Impleaded, Appellant
134 N.Y. 618·New York Court of Appeals·1892·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
John Hayes, Respondent, v. Catharine E. Rabold, Impleaded, Appellant.
(Submitted June 16, 1892;
decided October 1, 1892.)
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered upon an order made February 18, 1888, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term, and affirmed an order of the Special Term, making Andrew J. Moore a party to this action, and affirmed an order of said court denymg a motion to resettle said former order.
George W. Gcwr for appellant.
A. B. Moore for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to affirm; no opinion.
All concur.
Judgment and orders affirmed.