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 Ritterhouse et al., Appellants, v. Frank Beninger et. al., impl'd, etc., Respondents, 1872 — 49 N.Y. 664 · caselaw · US
General
Charles Ritterhouse et al., Appellants, v. Frank Beninger et. al., impl'd, etc., Respondents
49 N.Y. 664·New York Court of Appeals·1872·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 Ritterhouse et al., Appellants, v. Frank Beninger et. al., impl’d, etc., Respondents.
(Argued April 17, 1872;
decided April 23, 1872.)
Decided upon the facts in the case.
A. G. Hice for the appellants.
Simeon E. Glmrch for the respondents.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to affirm. No opinion.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.