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.
Samuel Haight et al., Respondents, v. Henry E. Williams, Appellant, 1871 — 46 N.Y. 683 · caselaw · US
General
Samuel Haight et al., Respondents, v. Henry E. Williams, Appellant
46 N.Y. 683·New York Court of Appeals·1871·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
Samuel Haight et al., Respondents, v. Henry E. Williams, Appellant.
Since the Code this court has no more power to review a question of fact in an equity suit, than in an action at law.
(Argued June 12th, 1871;
decided September 5th, 1871.)
G. H. Brewster & T. Hyslojo, for appellant.
B. P. Barnard, for respondents.
Action by Haight, a former partner of defendant, and assignees for an accounting and recovery of an alleged balance due on the dissolution of the firm. Judgment for plaintiffs affirmed at General Term.
[MAJORITY — Peckham, J.,]
Peckham, J.,
reads opinion for affirmance.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.