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
Ellen M. Houghtaling, Appellant, v. William M. Groesbeck, Respondent
51 N.Y. 673·New York Commission of Appeals·1873·NY
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
Ellen M. Houghtaling, Appellant, v. William M. Groesbeck, Respondent.
(Argued January 14, 1873;
decided March term, 1873.)
This action was commenced in Justice’s Court by, long summons. The parties resided in the town of Schaghticoke, the justice in the town of Hoosick, Rensselaer county. The only question in the case was as to whether the two towns adjoined so as to give the justice jurisdiction. Held, that the two towns were separated by the town of Pittstown, as bounded by the Revised Statutes, and that, therefore, the justice had no jurisdiction.
R. A. Parmenter for the appellant.
Elisha Butts for the respondent.
[MAJORITY — Reynolds, C.,]
Reynolds, C.,
reads for affirmance.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.