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.
Washington H. Taylor, Appellant, v. Catharine Taylor et al., Respondents, 1892 — 133 N.Y. 693 · caselaw · US
General
Washington H. Taylor, Appellant, v. Catharine Taylor et al., Respondents
133 N.Y. 693·New York Court of Appeals·1892·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
Washington H. Taylor, Appellant, v. Catharine Taylor et al., Respondents.
(Submitted June 7, 1892;
decided June 17, 1892.)
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered upon an order made December 31, 1891, which affirmed an order of Special Term overruling demurrers to defendants’ answers.
Malcolm R. Laworence for appellant.
JBenj. Schcvrps and William Fullerton for respondents.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to affirm on opinions below.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.