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.
Sarah E. Raymond, as Executrix of Aaron Raymond, Deceased, Appellant, v. Abram J. Dittenhoefer et al., as Executors of Sheridan Shook, Deceased, Respondents, 1901 — 166 N.Y. 599 · caselaw · US
General
Sarah E. Raymond, as Executrix of Aaron Raymond, Deceased, Appellant, v. Abram J. Dittenhoefer et al., as Executors of Sheridan Shook, Deceased, Respondents
166 N.Y. 599·New York Court of Appeals·1901·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
Sarah E. Raymond, as Executrix of Aaron Raymond, Deceased, Appellant, v. Abram J. Dittenhoefer et al., as Executors of Sheridan Shook, Deceased, Respondents.
Raymond v. Dittenhoefer, 53 App. Div. 637, affirmed.
(Argued January 29, 1901;
decided March 12, 1901.)
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered July 25, 1900, affirming a judgment in favor of defendants, entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court at a Trial Term, and an order denying a motion for a new trial.
Frederick E. Anderson and John Ewen for appellant.
I. M. Dittenhoefer and A. J. Dittenhoefer for respondents.
[MAJORITY]
Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
Concur: Gray, Bartlett, Vann, Cullen and Werner, JJ. Dissenting: Parker, Oh. J., and Martin, J.