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.
Justus Yale, Appellant, v. Charles J. Mills, Respondent, 1873 — 51 N.Y. 645 · caselaw · US
General
Justus Yale, Appellant, v. Charles J. Mills, Respondent
51 N.Y. 645·New York Commission of Appeals·1873·NY
All concur.
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
Justus Yale, Appellant, v. Charles J. Mills, Respondent.
(Argued September 17, 1872;
decided January term, 1873.)
Decided upon the ground of the erroneous reception of evidence, which may have affected the verdict.
George F. Danforth for the appellant.
W. F. Cogswell for the respondent.
[MAJORITY — Hunt, C.,]
Hunt, C.,
reads for reversal.
All concur.
Judgment reversed and new trial granted.