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 Secor, Jr., et al., Appellants, v. Mary J. Clark, Individually, and as Executrix, etc., Respondent, 1889 — 115 N.Y. 666 · caselaw · US
General
Horace Secor, Jr., et al., Appellants, v. Mary J. Clark, Individually, and as Executrix, etc., Respondent
115 N.Y. 666·New York Court of Appeals·1889·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
Horace Secor, Jr., et al., Appellants, v. Mary J. Clark, Individually, and as Executrix, etc., Respondent.
(Submitted June 31, 1889;
decided October 8, 1889.)
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Superior Court of the city of New York, entered upon an order made June 14, 1887, which affirmed a judgment, entered upon an order of Special Term, sustaining a demurrer to the complaint.
Horace Secor, Jr., appellant, in person.'
George W. Cotterill for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to affirm; no opinion.
All concur.
. Judgment affirmed.