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
Mary A. P. Tucker, v. Cornelia Gilman, Respondent, Preble Tucker, Appellant
125 N.Y. 714·New York Court of Appeals·1891·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
Mary A. P. Tucker, v. Cornelia Gilman, Respondent, Preble Tucker, Appellant.
(Argued December 15, 1890;
decided January 13, 1891.)
Appeal from order of the General Term of the Supreme; Court in the first judicial department, made October 6, 1890,. which affirmed an order of Special Term directing Preble; Tucker, as owner of the cause of action, to pay the costs, thereof upon rendition of a judgment against plaintiff.
Charles J. Hardy for appellant.
' George H. Fletcher for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to affirm; no opinion.
All concur.
Order affirmed.