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.
Mary E. Cole, Executrix, etc., Respondent, v. John M. Niles et al., Appellants, 1875 — 62 N.Y. 636 · caselaw · US
General
Mary E. Cole, Executrix, etc., Respondent, v. John M. Niles et al., Appellants
62 N.Y. 636·New York Court of Appeals·1875·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
Mary E. Cole, Executrix, etc., Respondent, v. John M. Niles et al., Appellants.
(Argued June 15, 1875;
decided June 25, 1875.)
John Cadman for the appellants.
J. C. Ormsby for the respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to affirm on opinion of court below.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.