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.
Margaret E. Bulkley, as Administratrix, etc., Respondent, v. The Port Henry Iron Ore Company of Lake Champlain, Appellant, 1889 — 117 N.Y. 645 · caselaw · US
General
Margaret E. Bulkley, as Administratrix, etc., Respondent, v. The Port Henry Iron Ore Company of Lake Champlain, Appellant
117 N.Y. 645·New York Court of Appeals·1889·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
Margaret E. Bulkley, as Administratrix, etc., Respondent, v. The Port Henry Iron Ore Company of Lake Champlain, Appellant.
(Argued October 31, 1889;
decided November 26, 1889.)
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered upon an order made May 18, 1888, which affirmed a judgment in favor of' plaintiff, entered upon a verdict, and affirmed an order denying a motion for a new trial.
Chester B. McLaughlin, for appellant.
Richard L. Hand for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to affirm; no opinion.
All concur. •
Judgment affirmed.