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.
Henry A. Bowerman, Appellant, v. Warren D. Bowerman et al., Respondents, 1895 — 145 N.Y. 598 · caselaw · US
General
Henry A. Bowerman, Appellant, v. Warren D. Bowerman et al., Respondents
145 N.Y. 598·New York Court of Appeals·1895·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
Henry A. Bowerman, Appellant, v. Warren D. Bowerman et al., Respondents.
(Argued January 30, 1895;
decided February 26, 1895.)
Appeal from order of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, made February 15, 1894, which reversed a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon the report of a referee and ordered a new trial before another referee.
Horace Secor, Jr., for appellant.
William C. De Witt and Puyson Merrill for respondents.
Reported below, 76 Hun, 46.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to affirm order and for judgment absolute in favor of defendants upon stipulation on opinion below.
Order affirmed and judgment accordingly.