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.
Mary E. Hindman et al., Appellants, v. Ellen F. Haurand et al., Respondents, 1899 — 159 N.Y. 546 · caselaw · US
General
Mary E. Hindman et al., Appellants, v. Ellen F. Haurand et al., Respondents
159 N.Y. 546·New York Court of Appeals·1899·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
Mary E. Hindman et al., Appellants, v. Ellen F. Haurand et al., Respondents.
Hindman v. Haurand, 2 App. Div. 146, affirmed.
(Argued April 27, 1899;
decided June 6, 1899.)
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered March 23, 1896, upon an order affirming a judgment entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term.
Herman Aa/ron for appellants.
J. Newton Fiero and A. N. Weller for respondents.
[MAJORITY]
Judgment and order affirmed, with costs, on opinion below.
All concur.