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.
Adelaide S. Smith, Respondent, v. Patrick Dempsey et al., Appellants, 1886 — 102 N.Y. 655 · caselaw · US
General
Adelaide S. Smith, Respondent, v. Patrick Dempsey et al., Appellants
102 N.Y. 655·New York Court of Appeals·1886·NY
All concur.
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
Adelaide S. Smith, Respondent, v. Patrick Dempsey et al., Appellants.
(Argued March 15, 1886;
decided March 26, 1886.)
Isaac Lawson and Frcmklin A. Paddock for appellants.
Nathaniel G. Moak for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Judgment reversed and case remitted to the Special Term for the determination of the motion for a new trial, on the ground that it had no power to annex to the order reducing the recovery a condition that it should be operative only in case the reduced amount should be paid, without costs to either party upon the appeal; no opinion.
All concur.
Judgment accordingly.