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.
Richard Bishop, as Administrator, etc., Appellant, v. Helen E. Hendrick, Respondent, 1895 — 146 N.Y. 398 · caselaw · US
General
Richard Bishop, as Administrator, etc., Appellant, v. Helen E. Hendrick, Respondent
146 N.Y. 398·New York Court of Appeals·1895·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
Richard Bishop, as Administrator, etc., Appellant, v. Helen E. Hendrick, Respondent.
(Argued May 23, 1895;
decided June 11, 1895.)
Appeal from orders of the General Term of the Supreme -Court in the third judicial department, made December 4, 1894, one of which modified and affirmed, as modified, an order of Special Term overruling and sustaining certain exceptions to the report of a referee and modifying and confirming said report, and the other of which reversed a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term.
John G. Keeler for appellant.
I). G. Griffin for respondent.
Reported below, 82 Hun, 323.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to affirm on opinion below.
All concur.
Orders affirmed.