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
In the Matter of the Petition of Sarah Roxbury, Appellant. Edward E. McCall et al., Respondents
185 N.Y. 543·New York Court of Appeals·1906·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
In the Matter of the Petition of Sarah Roxbury, Appellant. Edward E. McCall et al., Respondents.
Matter of Roxbury, 111 App. Div. 914, affirmed.
(Argued April 17, 1906;
decided May 1, 1906.)
Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered February 13, 1906, which affirmed an order of the New York County Surrogate’s Court denying an application for the payment of the income of a trust fund created by the will of Thomas J. Kearney, deceased.
Aaron J. Colnon and Raymond D. Thurber for appellant.
Vincent T. Coughlin for respondents.
[MAJORITY]
Order affirmed, without costs; no opinion.
Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Edward T. Bartlett, Haight, Vann, Willard Bartlett and Chase, JJ.