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.
Michael Bowen, Respondent, v. Michael Sweeney et al., Appellants, 1898 — 154 N.Y. 780 · caselaw · US
General
Michael Bowen, Respondent, v. Michael Sweeney et al., Appellants
154 N.Y. 780·New York Court of Appeals·1898·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
Michael Bowen, Respondent, v. Michael Sweeney et al., Appellants.
Bowen v. Sweeney, 89 Hun, 359, affirmed.
(Argued December 9, 1897;
decided January 11, 1898.)
Appeal from an order of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department and from the judgment entered thereon October 23,1895, which affirmed a final judgment in an action of partition, an interlocutory judgment and an order denying a motion to set aside a verdict and for a new trial.
William H. Arnoux and Francis C. Dmlin for appellants.-
Flamen B. Candler and Robert W. Candler for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Order and judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
All concur.