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 Z. Brown, Respondent, v. The Town of Canton, Appellant
49 N.Y. 662·New York Court of Appeals·1872·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 Z. Brown, Respondent, v. The Town of Canton, Appellant.
(Submitted April 16, 1872;
decided April 23, 1872.)
Pt.atmttw. a minor, enlisted, and was credited upon the quota of the town of Canton, St. Lawrence county. The town had voted to pay $300 bounty to those who should thus enlist. It was agreed, between the plaintiff, his father and the supervisor of the town, that the father should receive the bounty, and the bonds of the town for the amount of the bounty, made payable to plaintiff or order, were issued and delivered to the father. Upon the maturity of the bonds they were paid to the assignee of the father. They were not indorsed by the plaintiff, who brings this action to recover the amount thereof of the town. Held, that the plaintiff had no interest in or title to the bonds; that his father was the equitable owner, and that defendant was not liable to plaintiff thereon.
W. G. Godke for the appellant.
Foote & James for the respondent.
[MAJORITY — Gkover, J.,]
Gkover, J.,
reads for reversal and new trial. All concur. Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, costs to abide event.