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.
William Cole, as Executor, etc., Respondent, v. Charles E. Frost, as Executor, etc., et al., Appellants et al., Respondents, 1891 — 125 N.Y. 725 · caselaw · US
General
William Cole, as Executor, etc., Respondent, v. Charles E. Frost, as Executor, etc., et al., Appellants et al., Respondents
125 N.Y. 725·New York Court of Appeals·1891·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
William Cole, as Executor, etc., Respondent, v. Charles E. Frost, as Executor, etc., et al., Appellants et al., Respondents.
(Submitted January 14, 1891;
decided February 3, 1891.)
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered upon an order made February 12, 1889, which modified and, as modified, affirmed a judgment in favor of the defendant, The Methodist Episcopal Hospital, in the city of Brooklyn, entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term.
P. V. P. Stanton and Oal/oin Frost for appellants.
James Troy for respondent William Cole.
G. G. <& F. Reynolds for respondent M. E. Hospital
Wm. Hughes for respondents Doty et al.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to dismiss appeal; no opinion..
All concur.
Appeal dismissed.