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.
Esther A. Hulse et al., Appellants, v. William T. Bacon et al., Respondents, 1901 — 167 N.Y. 599 · caselaw · US
General
Esther A. Hulse et al., Appellants, v. William T. Bacon et al., Respondents
167 N.Y. 599·New York Court of Appeals·1901·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
Esther A. Hulse et al., Appellants, v. William T. Bacon et al., Respondents.
(Argued May 14, 1901;
decided June 4, 1901.)
Hulse v. Bacon, 40 App. Div. 89, affirmed.
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered May 18, 1899, affirming a judgment in favor of defendants entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court on trial at Special Term.
A. A. Spear for appellants.
Thomas J. Ritch, Jr., and George C. Case for respondents.
[MAJORITY]
Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
Concur: Parker, Ch. J., Gray, O’Brien, Martin, Landon and Werner, JJ. Not sitting; Cullen, J.