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.
John Colleran et al., Appellants, v. David T. Kennedy et al., Respondents, 1883 — 94 N.Y. 634 · caselaw · US
Administrative
John Colleran et al., Appellants, v. David T. Kennedy et al., Respondents
94 N.Y. 634·New York Court of Appeals·1883·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
John Colleran et al., Appellants, v. David T. Kennedy et al., Respondents.
(Argued October 26, 1883 ;
decided November 27, 1883.)
Aside from questions as to facts, which were disposed of upon the ground that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the findings, there were various questions as to the reception of evidence; as to' these the court here say: “ An examination of the record shows that no reason for the objection was specified in any case, nor are the exceptions now supported upon grounds not capable of being obviated, had the attention of the adverse party been called to them.”
E. H. Benn for appellants.
Edward G. Whitaker for respondents. ,
[MAJORITY — Danforth, J.,]
Danforth, J.,
reads for affirmance.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.