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
William T. Heins, Appellant, v. Charles A. Peine, Respondent
56 N.Y. 610·New York Court of Appeals·1874·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
William T. Heins, Appellant, v. Charles A. Peine, Respondent.
(Argued February 9, 1874;
decided February 17, 1874.)
The only question presented in this case was as to the propriety of a refusal of the trial court to direct a verdict for the plaintiff. Held, that the ruling was proper, as it involved a question of fact upon which there was conflicting evidence.
C. Bainbridge Smith for the appellant.
John J. Townsend for the respondent.
[MAJORITY — Johnson, J.,]
Johnson, J.,
reads for affirmance.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.