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.
William Newell, Respondent, v. Cornelius J. Ryan et al., Appellants, 1889 — 116 N.Y. 656 · caselaw · US
General
William Newell, Respondent, v. Cornelius J. Ryan et al., Appellants
116 N.Y. 656·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
William Newell, Respondent, v. Cornelius J. Ryan et al., Appellants.
(Argued October 8, 1889;
decided October 22, 1889.
Reported below, 40 Hun, 286.
Appeal from order of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, made May 1,1886, which reversed a judgment in favor of defendants, entered upon a nonsuit at circuit, and granted a new trial.
W. S. Andrews for appellants.
M. E. Driscoll for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to affirm, and judgment absolute ordered on stipulation, with costs; no opinion.
All concur, except Follett, Ch. J., not sitting.
Order affirmed and judgment accordingly.