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.
John J. Barton, Respondent, v. William Govan, Appellant, 1889 — 116 N.Y. 658 · caselaw · US
General
John J. Barton, Respondent, v. William Govan, Appellant
116 N.Y. 658·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
John J. Barton, Respondent, v. William Govan, Appellant.
(Argued October 15, 1889;
decided October 22, 1889.)
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered upon an order made December 16, 1886, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered upon a verdict.
This action was brought to recover damages alleged to have been caused by the negligent and unskillful conduct of defendant, a physician and surgeon, in reducing and treating a fracture of plaintiff’s leg.
The only questions discussed on the appeal were as to the reception or rejection of evidence which were disposed of upon construction given to the questions and objections, and so presented nothing of general interest.
Calvin Frost for appellant.
David A. Haynes for respondent.
[MAJORITY — Haig-ht, J.,]
Haig-ht, J.,
reads for affirmance.
All concur; Brown, J., not sitting. Follett, Ch. J., concurring in result.