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.
Alfred D. Bump, Respondent, v. William Gilchrist et al., Appellants, 1891 — 127 N.Y. 668 · caselaw · US
General
Alfred D. Bump, Respondent, v. William Gilchrist et al., Appellants
127 N.Y. 668·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
Alfred D. Bump, Respondent, v. William Gilchrist et al., Appellants.
(Argued April 21, 1891;
decided June 2, 1891.)
Appeal from order of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, made March 16, 1889, which reversed a judgment in favor of defendants entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Circuit, granted a new trial and reversed an order of Special Term, making certain infants defendants.
Robert Armstrong, Jr., and John Conway, for appellants.
S. W. Russell for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to affirm and for judgment absolute for plaintiff; no opinion.
All concur.
Order affirmed and judgment accordingly.