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 Roe et al., Executors, etc., et al., Respondents, v. Caroline A. Strong et al., Appellants, 1893 — 137 N.Y. 592 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
Alfred Roe et al., Executors, etc., et al., Respondents, v. Caroline A. Strong et al., Appellants
137 N.Y. 592·New York Court of Appeals·1893·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 Roe et al., Executors, etc., et al., Respondents, v. Caroline A. Strong et al., Appellants.
(Argued February 2, 1893;
decided February 28, 1893.)
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered (upon an order made May 12,1892, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiffs entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term.
The following is the memorandum of opinion: “ Judgment affirmed with costs on authority of previous opinon of this court (119 N. Y. 316) and upon the opinion rendered below at Special Term; the difficulty suggested with respect to the boundaries in the Brewster-Seaton deed is to be satisfactorily resolved, upon careful consideration, in the way suggested by Judge Bartlett.”
A. A. Spear for appellants.
John J. Macklin for respondents.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to affirm; no opinion.
All concur.
Order affirmed.