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.
William H. Chapman, Respondent, v. The Town of Taylor, Appellant, 1893 — 136 N.Y. 663 · caselaw · US
General
William H. Chapman, Respondent, v. The Town of Taylor, Appellant
136 N.Y. 663·New York Court of Appeals·1893·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
William H. Chapman, Respondent, v. The Town of Taylor, Appellant.
(Argued December 9, 1892;
decided January 17, 1893.)
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered upon an order made April 26, 1892, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Circuit without a jury.
The following is the mem. of decision handed down hy the court:
“ It appears by the thirty-fifth finding of fact that in 1881 the plaintiff was the owner of the bonds from which the coupons sued on were cut. That ownership presumptively continued, and is not shown to have been changed.
“ On authority of Smvngs Bank case,* the judgment should he modified by deducting therefrom the sum of six hundred and fifty-seven dollars and ninety-eight cents, and, as modified, be affirmed, without costs to either party in this court.”
[MAJORITY]
All concur.
Judgment accordingly.