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.
Cyrus B. Elsworth, Plaintiff, v. Edward J. Woolsey et al., Defendants; George B. Lauck, Appellant, v. George W. Cotterill, Respondent, 1897 — 154 N.Y. 748 · caselaw · US
General
Cyrus B. Elsworth, Plaintiff, v. Edward J. Woolsey et al., Defendants; George B. Lauck, Appellant, v. George W. Cotterill, Respondent
154 N.Y. 748·New York Court of Appeals·1897·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
Cyrus B. Elsworth, Plaintiff, v. Edward J. Woolsey et al., Defendants. George B. Lauck, Appellant, v. George W. Cotterill, Respondent.
Elsworth v. Woolsey, 19 App. Div. 385, affirmed.
(Argued October 18, 1897;
decided November 23, 1897.)
Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered July 16, 1897, which affirmed an order of Special Term overruling exceptions to the report of a referee and confirming the report.
Henry G. Atwater and Wilfrid H. O’JFeil for appellant.
George W. Gotterill respondent in person.
[MAJORITY]
Order affirmed on opinion below, with costs.
All concur.