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.
Catharine Ann McClung, as Administratrix, etc., Appellant, v. Mary A. Foshour et al., Respondents, 1889 — 113 N.Y. 640 · caselaw · US
General
Catharine Ann McClung, as Administratrix, etc., Appellant, v. Mary A. Foshour et al., Respondents
113 N.Y. 640·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
Catharine Ann McClung, as Administratrix, etc., Appellant, v. Mary A. Foshour et al., Respondents.
(Submitted March. 15, 1889;
decided April 16, 1889.)
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered upon an order made November 15,1887, which reversed a judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered upon the report of a referee, and granted a new trial.
D. W. Sparling for appellant.
E. Ritzema, De Grove for respondents.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to affirm and for judgment absolute for defendants; no opinion.
All concur.
Judgment accordingly.