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.
Anna Swenson, as Admistratrix, etc., Respondent, v. Mahopac Iron Ore Company, Appellant, 1889 — 117 N.Y. 637 · caselaw · US
General
Anna Swenson, as Admistratrix, etc., Respondent, v. Mahopac Iron Ore Company, Appellant
117 N.Y. 637·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
Anna Swenson, as Admistratrix, etc., Respondent, v. Mahopac Iron Ore Company, Appellant.
(Argued October 22, 1889;
decided November 26, 1889.)
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Court of Common Pleas for the city and county of New York, entered upon an order made June 3, 1889, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered upon a verdict and affirmed an order denying a motion for a new trial..
William C. Holbrook for appellant.
J. Edward Swanstrom for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to affirm; no opinion.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.