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.
J. Edward Ackley et al., Respondents, v. The Reading Trust Company, Appellant, 1896 — 149 N.Y. 580 · caselaw · US
General
J. Edward Ackley et al., Respondents, v. The Reading Trust Company, Appellant
149 N.Y. 580·New York Court of Appeals·1896·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
J. Edward Ackley et al., Respondents, v. The Reading Trust Company, Appellant.
Ackley v. Reading Trust Co., 78 Hun, 616, affirmed.
(Argued April 10, 1896;
decided April 28, 1896.)
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered upon an order made May 18,1894, which overruled defendant’s exceptions ordered to be heard in the first instance at General Term, and directed judgment upon a verdict in favor of plaintiffs directed by the court.
George S. Coleman and Carlton B. Pierce for appellant.
George H. Yeaman and Clifford H. Strang for respondents.
[MAJORITY]
Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
All concur, except Andrews, Oh. J., dissenting.