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.
Eugenia Gehrke, an Infant, etc., Respondent, v. Mary Hayes, Impleaded, etc., Appellant, 1890 — 121 N.Y. 651 · caselaw · US
General
Eugenia Gehrke, an Infant, etc., Respondent, v. Mary Hayes, Impleaded, etc., Appellant
121 N.Y. 651·New York Court of Appeals·1890·NY
All concur.
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
Eugenia Gehrke, an Infant, etc., Respondent, v. Mary Hayes, Impleaded, etc., Appellant.
(Argued March 12, 1890;
decided April 15, 1890.)
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the City-Court of Brooklyn, entered upon an order made Hovember 28,1887, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict, and affirmed an order denying a motion for a • new trial.
S. T. Maddox for appellant.
Getting and Hinman for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to affirm; no opinion.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.