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
Mary Duffy, Respondent, v. Catharine Duffy, Appellant, et al., Respondents
130 N.Y. 654·New York Court of Appeals·1891·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
Mary Duffy, Respondent, v. Catharine Duffy, Appellant, et al., Respondents.
(Argued October 27, 1891;
decided December 1, 1891.)
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered upon an order made November 23,1888, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term and denied a motion for a new trial.
Rufus M. Williams for appellant.
William Erwin for Susan Daly, respondent.
Sidney II. Stuart for Mary Duffy, respondent.
Doherty, Durnin <& Uend/rieks for Francis Duffy et al., respondents.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to affirm; no opinion.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.