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.
Louis Boldt, an Infant, by Guardian, etc., Respondent, v. William D. Murray, Appellant, 1889 — 113 N.Y. 670 · caselaw · US
General
Louis Boldt, an Infant, by Guardian, etc., Respondent, v. William D. Murray, Appellant
113 N.Y. 670·New York Court of Appeals·1889·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
Louis Boldt, an Infant, by Guardian, etc., Respondent, v. William D. Murray, Appellant.
(Argued April 25, 1889;
decided June 4, 1889.)
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme •Court in the fifth judicial department, entered upon an order made the first Tuesday of June, 1886, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered upon a verdict and affirmed .an order denying a new trial.
William B. Hoyt for appellant.
George M. Osgoodby for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to affirm on opinion of Bradley, J., below.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.