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.
Robert S. Hayward, Appellant, v. Frederick A. Conkling, Respondent, 1884 — 96 N.Y. 664 · caselaw · US
Administrative
Robert S. Hayward, Appellant, v. Frederick A. Conkling, Respondent
96 N.Y. 664·New York Court of Appeals·1884·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
Robert S. Hayward, Appellant, v. Frederick A. Conkling, Respondent.
(Argued June 13,1884 ;
decided June 24, 1884
Henry E. Davies for appellant.
Samuel Hcmd for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to affirm order, and for judgment absolute against plaintiff on stipulation; no opinion.
All concur, except Bugeb, Oh. J., and Bapallo, J., dissenting.
Order affirmed, and judgment accordingly.