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.
James Devlin, Respondent, v. Ambrose O'Neill et al., Appellants, 1877 — 68 N.Y. 622 · caselaw · US
General
James Devlin, Respondent, v. Ambrose O'Neill et al., Appellants
68 N.Y. 622·New York Court of Appeals·1877·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
James Devlin, Respondent, v. Ambrose O’Neill et al., Appellants.
(Argued January 26, 1877;
decided February 6, 1877.)
This was an action to recover damages for the alleged unlawful entry by defendants upon and injury to premises owned by plaintiff, removing therefrom fixtures and furniture, etc. As the court simply concur in result, no further statement is made of the case.
Allen McDonald for the appellants.
Francis C. Devlin for the respondent.
[MAJORITY — Miller, J.,]
Miller, J.,
reads for affirmance.
All concur in result.
Judgment affirmed.