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.
Sarah C. Douglass et al., as Executors of George L. Cornell, Deceased, Respondents, v. William B. Halstead et al., as Executors of Newbury D. Halstead, Deceased, and William B. Halstead, Individually, Appellants, 1899 — 161 N.Y. 621 · caselaw · US
Administrative
Sarah C. Douglass et al., as Executors of George L. Cornell, Deceased, Respondents, v. William B. Halstead et al., as Executors of Newbury D. Halstead, Deceased, and William B. Halstead, Individually, Appellants
161 N.Y. 621·New York Court of Appeals·1899·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
Sarah C. Douglass et al., as Executors of George L. Cornell, Deceased, Respondents, v. William B. Halstead et al., as Executors of Newbury D. Halstead, Deceased, and William B. Halstead, Individually, Appellants.
Douglass v. Bush, 34 App. Div. 336, appeal dismissed.
(Submitted November 20, 1899;
decided December 5, 1899.)
Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered ¡November 29, 1898, affirming an order of Special Term adjudging defendant William B. Halstead in contempt for the violation of an injunction.
Frederick William Sherman for appellants.
John H. Clapp for respondents.
[MAJORITY]
Appeal dismissed, with costs, on the authority of Ray v. N. Y. Bay Extension R. R. Co. (155 N. Y. 102), and Jewelers’ Mercantile Agency v. Rothschild (155 N. Y. 255). No opinion.
All concur.