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.
Louisa Robertson, Respondent, v. The New Hampshire Insurance Company of Manchester, Appellant; Same Respondent v. The Insurance Company of the State of Penn., Philadelphia, Appellant, 1893 — 137 N.Y. 530 · caselaw · US
General
Louisa Robertson, Respondent, v. The New Hampshire Insurance Company of Manchester, Appellant; Same Respondent v. The Insurance Company of the State of Penn., Philadelphia, Appellant
137 N.Y. 530·New York Court of Appeals·1893·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
Louisa Robertson, Respondent, v. The New Hampshire Insurance Company of Manchester, Appellant. Same Respondent v. The Insurance Company of the State of Penn., Philadelphia, Appellant.
(Argued December 21, 1892;
decided January 17, 1893.)
Appeals from judgments of the General Term of the Superior Court of Buffalo, entered upon orders made the second Monday of October, 1891, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff in each of the above entitled actions, entered upon a verdict in the first, and upon a decision of the court on trial at Circuit in the second, and also affirmed an order denying a motion for a new trial in both of said actions.
I. N. Ames for appellants.
Adelbert Moot for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to affirm; no opinion.'
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.