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.
Ludwig Bauman, Respondent, v. Elizabeth Moseley, as Administratrix, etc., Appellant, 1895 — 145 N.Y. 620 · caselaw · US
General
Ludwig Bauman, Respondent, v. Elizabeth Moseley, as Administratrix, etc., Appellant
145 N.Y. 620·New York Court of Appeals·1895·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
Ludwig Bauman, Respondent, v. Elizabeth Moseley, as Administratrix, etc., Appellant.
(Argued February 28, 1895;
decided March 19, 1895.)
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered upon an order made November 11,1893, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon the report of a referee,
Henry L. Brant for appellant.
William H. Shepard for respondent.
Reported below, 73 Hun, 40.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to affirm on opinion below.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.