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
Louis M. Brock et al., Appellants, v. Nehemiah Pierson et al., Respondents
46 N.Y. 690·New York Court of Appeals·1871·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
Louis M. Brock et al., Appellants, v. Nehemiah Pierson et al., Respondents.
(Argued and decided with the last.)
These two cases were practically consolidated below. One judgment was entered, which was affirmed by the General Term of the Superior Court of Buffalo; one judgment of affirmance being entered. Two remittiturs were sent down. A motion was made to correct the remittiturs, which was decided January 30, 1872.
[MAJORITY]
Held, that but one judgment should have been entered, with one bill of costs. Ordered, that remittitur be corrected accordingly. Opinion by Allen, J.