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.
Oliver Porter, Appellant, v. Nathan Knapp, Respondent, 1875 — 65 N.Y. 564 · caselaw · US
General
Oliver Porter, Appellant, v. Nathan Knapp, Respondent
65 N.Y. 564·New York Commission of Appeals·1875·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
Oliver Porter, Appellant, v. Nathan Knapp, Respondent.
(Argued January 7, 1875;
decided May term, 1875.)
The principal and only question of importance in this case was the same as that in Warren v. Ha/ight, ante, p. 171.
Amasa J. Pa/rker for the appellant.
H. Hoyt for the respondent.
[MAJORITY — Dwight, C.,]
Dwight, C.,
reads for reversal.
All concur.
Order reversed and judgment on verdict affirmed, with costs.