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.
Ellen I. Ballard, as Executrix, etc., Respondent, v. The Hitchcock Manufacturing Company, Appellant, 1895 — 145 N.Y. 619 · caselaw · US
General
Ellen I. Ballard, as Executrix, etc., Respondent, v. The Hitchcock Manufacturing Company, Appellant
145 N.Y. 619·New York Court of Appeals·1895·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
Ellen I. Ballard, as Executrix, etc., Respondent, v. The Hitchcock Manufacturing Company, Appellant.
(Argued February 27, 1895;
decided March 19, 1895.)
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered upon an order made the second Tuesday of September, 1893, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict, and affirmed an order denying a motion for a new trial.
O. U. Kellogg for appellant.
Franklin Pierce for respondent.
Reported below, 71 Hun, 582.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to affirm on opinion below.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.