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 Heerdegen, Respondent, v. Rudolph Loreck, as Executor of Alexander E. Schnee, Deceased, Appellant, 1896 — 149 N.Y. 622 · caselaw · US
General
John Heerdegen, Respondent, v. Rudolph Loreck, as Executor of Alexander E. Schnee, Deceased, Appellant
149 N.Y. 622·New York Court of Appeals·1896·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 Heerdegen, Respondent, v. Rudolph Loreck, as Executor of Alexander E. Schnee, Deceased, Appellant.
Heerdegen v. Schnee, 89 Hun, 611, affirmed.
(Argued June 9, 1896;
decided June 19, 1896.)
Appeal from order of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, made October 18, 1895, which affirmed an order of Special Term directing a compulsory reference.
Louis O. Van Doren for appellant.
William R. Bronk for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
All concur.