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.
John Parrott, Appellant, v. Joseph Sawyer, Respondent, 1881 — 87 N.Y. 622 · caselaw · US
General
John Parrott, Appellant, v. Joseph Sawyer, Respondent
87 N.Y. 622·New York Court of Appeals·1881·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
John Parrott, Appellant, v. Joseph Sawyer, Respondent.
(Argued October 24, 1881;
decided November 22, 1881.)
This case presented the same questions and was decided upon authority of Parrott v. Colby (6 Hun, 55; affirmed, 71 N. Y. 597). (See also Jagger Iron Co. v. Walker, 76 1ST. Y. 521.)
Albert Stickney for appellant.
WilUam G. Wilson for respondent.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam]
Per Curiam
opinion for affirmance of order and for judg-
ment absolute on stipulation.
All concur.
Order affirmed and judgment accordingly.