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.
George W. Mead, Respondent, v. Mary E. Jenkins et al., Appellants, 1888 — 109 N.Y. 661 · caselaw · US
General
George W. Mead, Respondent, v. Mary E. Jenkins et al., Appellants
109 N.Y. 661·New York Court of Appeals·1888·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
George W. Mead, Respondent, v. Mary E. Jenkins et al., Appellants.
(Submitted April 20, 1888;
decided June 5, 1888.)
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered upon an order made December 15, 1885, which reversed a decree of the surrogate of Westchester county in proceedings to sell real estate.
M. L. Cobb and Stephen, S. Marshall for appellants.
Sewall Sergeant for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to affirm on opinion below.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.