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 Dwyer, Respondent, v. Abraham B. Conger, Appellant, 1875 — 61 N.Y. 660 · caselaw · US
General
John Dwyer, Respondent, v. Abraham B. Conger, Appellant
61 N.Y. 660·New York Commission of Appeals·1875·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 Dwyer, Respondent, v. Abraham B. Conger, Appellant.
(Argued September 24, 1874;
decided January term, 1875.)
The principal questions in this case were upon exceptions to findings of fact. It was held, that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the findings.
James A. Seaman for the appellant.
Amasa J. Parker for the respondent.
[MAJORITY — Lott, Ch. C.,]
Lott, Ch. C.,
reads for affirmance.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.