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.
Phebe A. Smith, Respondent, v. John P. Cranford and David H. Valentine, Appellants, 1898 — 155 N.Y. 640 · caselaw · US
General
Phebe A. Smith, Respondent, v. John P. Cranford and David H. Valentine, Appellants
155 N.Y. 640·New York Court of Appeals·1898·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
Phebe A. Smith, Respondent, v. John P. Cranford and David H. Valentine, Appellants.
Smith v. Cranford, 84 Hun, 318, affirmed.
(Argued January 26, 1898;
decided March 1, 1898.)
Appeal from a judgment of the late General Term of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered February 19, 1895, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon the report of a referee.
WilUam J. Garr and Jesse Johnson for appellants.
Alfred A. Gardner for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Judgment affirmed on opinion below, with costs.
All concur.