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.
Charles H. Smith, Respondent, v. Joseph Ryan, Appellant, 1891 — 130 N.Y. 653 · caselaw · US
General
Charles H. Smith, Respondent, v. Joseph Ryan, Appellant
130 N.Y. 653·New York Court of Appeals·1891·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
Charles H. Smith, Respondent, v. Joseph Ryan, Appellant.
(Argued October 21, 1891;
decided December 1, 1891.)
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the City Court of Brooklyn, entered upon an order made February 24, 1890, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered upon a verdict and affirmed an order denying a motion for a new trial.
Horace Gra/oes for appellant.
James D. Bell for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to affirm; no opinion.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.