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.
Thomas M. King et al., Respondents, v. Reon Barnes et al., Appellants, 1889 — 113 N.Y. 655 · caselaw · US
General
Thomas M. King et al., Respondents, v. Reon Barnes et al., Appellants
113 N.Y. 655·New York Court of Appeals·1889·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
Thomas M. King et al., Respondents, v. Reon Barnes et al., Appellants.
(Argued April 16, 1889;
decided May 3, 1889.)
Appeal from order of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, made February 11, 1889, which affirmed an order of Special Term appointing a receiver of the New York Transit and Terminal Company (Limited).
William B. Hornblower for appellants.
William W. Mac Farland for respondents.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to affirm; no opinion.
All concur.
Order affirmed.