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.
Katherine C. K. Hagan, Appellant, v. Sidney Ward, Individually and as Executor of Anna Sutherland, Deceased, et al., Respondents, 1904 — 178 N.Y. 560 · caselaw · US
General
Katherine C. K. Hagan, Appellant, v. Sidney Ward, Individually and as Executor of Anna Sutherland, Deceased, et al., Respondents
178 N.Y. 560·New York Court of Appeals·1904·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
Katherine C. K. Hagan, Appellant, v. Sidney Ward, Individually and as Executor of Anna Sutherland, Deceased, et al., Respondents.
Hagan v. Ward, 86 App. Div. 620, affirmed.
(Argued February 25, 1904;
decided March 15, 1904.)
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered July 22, 1903, affirming a judgment in favor of defendants entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court- on trial at Special Term.
Albert Sticlmey and Everett V. Abbott for appellant.
Ehhu Root and George P. Hotaling for respondents.
[MAJORITY — Per Guriam.]
Per Guriam.
In Hagan v. Sone (174 N. Y. 317) the trial court directed a verdict for the defendant, upon which judgment was entered and affirmed by the Appellate Division.
On appeal this court held that when evidence is given of such a character that different inferences may fairly and reason ably be drawn from it, the fact must be determined by the jury-
in the case before us the trial judge, on evidence of a similar character, has decided the issues in favor of the defendants, upon which decision judgment was entered and affirmed by the Appellate Division. The facts as thus settled are binding on this court.
The judgment should be affirmed, with costs to defendant Sone.
Parker, Ch. J., Gray, O’Brien, Bartlett, Martin, Vann and Werner, JJ., concur.
Judgment affirmed.