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.
The Rector, Church-Wardens and Vestrymen of the Church of the Redemption, Respondent, v. The Rector, Church-Wardens and Vestrymen of Grace Church, Appellant, 1882 — 89 N.Y. 615 · caselaw · US
General
The Rector, Church-Wardens and Vestrymen of the Church of the Redemption, Respondent, v. The Rector, Church-Wardens and Vestrymen of Grace Church, Appellant
89 N.Y. 615·New York Court of Appeals·1882·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
The Rector, Church-Wardens and Vestrymen of the Church of the Redemption, Respondent, v. The Rector, Church-Wardens and Vestrymen of Grace Church, Appellant.
(Argued May 3, 1882;
decided May 30, 1882.)
This case on a former appeal is reported' in 68 N. Y. 570.
Under the decision there rendered, and as provided in the remittitur, an accounting was had as to the personalty to which it was held plaintiff was entitled.
The court here say that all the questions of law involved were determined upon the former appeal, and there was evidence sufficient to sustain the findings of fact, and the court concur in the opinion of General Term in reference thereto.
Aaron J. Vanderpoel for appellant.
C. E. Tracy for respondent.
[MAJORITY — Per Owria/m]
Per Owria/m
opinion for affirmance.
All concur, except Miller and Tract, JJ., absent
Judgment affirmed.