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.
Fitzhugh A. Cheesebro, Respondent, v. Anna Corning, Appellant, 1902 — 172 N.Y. 626 · caselaw · US
General
Fitzhugh A. Cheesebro, Respondent, v. Anna Corning, Appellant
172 N.Y. 626·New York Court of Appeals·1902·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
Fitzhugh A. Cheesebro, Respondent, v. Anna Corning, Appellant.
Cheesebro v. Corning, 61 App. Div. 612, affirmed.
(Argued October 15, 1902;
decided October 31, 1902.)
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered May 8, 1901, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial.
John Van Voorhis and Brown db Poole for appellant.
George D. Reed for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Judgment affirmed, but as the court think the damages in this case are excessive and as this court cannot reverse on that account or reduce the damages, the affirmance is without costs; no opinion.
Concur: Parker, Ch. J., Gray, Bartlett, Haight, Martin and Cullen, JJ. Not voting : Werner, J.