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.
William Curry, Respondent, v. Eliza Henry et al., Appellants, 1887 — 106 N.Y. 659 · caselaw · US
Administrative
William Curry, Respondent, v. Eliza Henry et al., Appellants
106 N.Y. 659·New York Court of Appeals·1887·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
William Curry, Respondent, v. Eliza Henry et al., Appellants.
(Argued April 25, 1887;
decided June 14, 1887.)
F. F. Dana for appellants.
Thomas J. Tilney for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to affirm; no opinion.
All concur, except Rugeb, Olí. J.; Rapallo and Danfobth, JJ., dissenting.