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.
Peter H. McNulty, Respondent, v. Charles Urban, Appellant, 1893 — 140 N.Y. 660 · caselaw · US
General
Peter H. McNulty, Respondent, v. Charles Urban, Appellant
140 N.Y. 660·New York Court of Appeals·1893·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
Peter H. McNulty, Respondent, v. Charles Urban, Appellant.
(Argued December 8, 1893;
decided December 22, 1893.)
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the City Court of Brooklyn, entered upon an order made December 31, 1892, which dismissed the appeal of the defendant Eliza Urban and affirmed a judgment in favor of the plaintiff' against the defendant Charles Urban entered upon a decision. of the court on trial at Special Term.
Howa/rd A. Sperry for appellant.
WillÁmi J. Qa/ynor for resjDondent.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to affirm ; no opinion.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.