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.
Adelia K. Hamilton, Executrix, etc., Respondent, v. James Smith et al., Appellants, 1872 — 47 N.Y. 660 · caselaw · US
General
Adelia K. Hamilton, Executrix, etc., Respondent, v. James Smith et al., Appellants
47 N.Y. 660·New York Court of Appeals·1872·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
Adelia K. Hamilton, Executrix, etc., Respondent, v. James Smith et al., Appellants.
(Argued January 18th, 1872;
decided January 23d, 1872.)
Decided upon the facts in the case; also upon the ground that the exception is not sufficiently specific to present the question relied upon by appellant for review.
E. Cooke for appellants.
Brown & Estes for respondent.
[MAJORITY — Church, Oh. J.,]
Church, Oh. J.,
reads opinion for affirmance.
All concur. Judgment affirmed.