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.
Edwin Oliver Harrison et al., Respondents, v. Mary W. Platt et al., Respondents; In the Matter of the Petition of Adolphus Ottenberg, Purchaser, Appellant, 1899 — 158 N.Y. 712 · caselaw · US
General
Edwin Oliver Harrison et al., Respondents, v. Mary W. Platt et al., Respondents; In the Matter of the Petition of Adolphus Ottenberg, Purchaser, Appellant
158 N.Y. 712·New York Court of Appeals·1899·NY
All concur.
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
Edwin Oliver Harrison et al., Respondents, v. Mary W. Platt et al., Respondents. In the Matter of the Petition of Adolphus Ottenberg, Purchaser, Appellant.
(Argued February 28, 1899;
decided March 21, 1899.)
Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered December 9, 1898, affirming an order of Special Term denying the petition of a purchaser at a partition sale to be relieved from his purchase.
Harrison v. Platt, 35 App. Div. 533, affirmed.
Abram I Elhus and Edward J. McGuire for appellant.
Fremcis B. Ohedsey and Cephas Brawierd for respondents.
[MAJORITY]
Order affirmed, with costs, on opinion below;
All concur.