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.
Horace V. Howland v. Jeremiah Krom et al., Ambrose Raymond et al., Claimants, Appellants, Royal Mack et al., Claimants, Respondents, 1886 — 102 N.Y. 651 · caselaw · US
General
Horace V. Howland v. Jeremiah Krom et al., Ambrose Raymond et al., Claimants, Appellants, Royal Mack et al., Claimants, Respondents
102 N.Y. 651·New York Court of Appeals·1886·NY
All concur.
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
Horace V. Howland v. Jeremiah Krom et al., Ambrose Raymond et al., Claimants, Appellants, Royal Mack et al., Claimants, Respondents.
(Submitted March 12, 1886 ;
decided March 26, 1886.)
J. W. Beehley and Henry W. Conklin for appellants.
Chester M. Elliott for respondents.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to affirm ; no qpinion.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.