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.
Thomas Dickinson et al., Appellants, v. Mary A. Ensign, Respondent, 1890 — 120 N.Y. 650 · caselaw · US
General
Thomas Dickinson et al., Appellants, v. Mary A. Ensign, Respondent
120 N.Y. 650·New York Court of Appeals·1890·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
Thomas Dickinson et al., Appellants, v. Mary A. Ensign, Respondent.
(Argued April 24, 1890;
decided June 3, 1890.)
Appeal from Order of the General Term of the Superior Court of Buffalo, made January 10, 1888, which reversed, on the facts, a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon the report of a, referee and granted a new trial.
The court here, after an examination of the evidence, reach the conclusion “ that the refereed findings were warranted by the evidence.”
Trumcm 0. White for appellant.
George M. Osgoodlg for respondent.
[MAJORITY — Folhett, Ch. J.,]
Folhett, Ch. J.,
reads mem. for reversal of order and for affirmance of judgment.
All concur, except Parker and Brown, JJ., dissenting.
Order reversed and judgment affirmed.