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.
Frederick W. Carruthers, Appellant, v. Julia Diefendorf, Respondent, 1903 — 174 N.Y. 549 · caselaw · US
General
Frederick W. Carruthers, Appellant, v. Julia Diefendorf, Respondent
174 N.Y. 549·New York Court of Appeals·1903·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
Frederick W. Carruthers, Appellant, v. Julia Diefendorf, Respondent.
Carruthers v. Diefendorf, 66 App. Div. 81, affirmed.
(Argued April 8, 1903;
decided April 28, 1903.)
Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered November 9, 1901, reversing a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon the report of a referee and granting a new trial.
WiUiam G. Cooke for appellant.
Arthur P. Hilton for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Order affirmed and judgment absolute ordered for defendant on the stipulation, with costs; no opinion.
Concur: Geay, O’Bbien, Mabtin, Vann, Cullen and Webneb, JJ. Dissenting: Pabkeb, Ch. J.