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.
Solomon G. Woodruff et al., Appellants, v. Peter Valentine, Respondent, 1874 — 57 N.Y. 663 · caselaw · US
General
Solomon G. Woodruff et al., Appellants, v. Peter Valentine, Respondent
57 N.Y. 663·New York Commission of Appeals·1874·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
Solomon G. Woodruff et al., Appellants, v. Peter Valentine, Respondent.
(Argued January 14, 1874;
decided May term, 1874.)
This appeal was upon exceptions to findings of fact solely. Held, that the findings complained of were not without some evidence to sustain them, and therefore could not be reviewed here.
A. B. Crane for the appellants.
Sidney S. Harris for the respondent.
[MAJORITY — Gray, C.,]
Gray, C.,
reads for affirmance.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.