Holder v. Holder
59 N.Y.S. 204, 40 A.D. 255
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Holder v. Holder. Read the opinion of the Court — 40 A.D. 255 →
Opinion
There is an inaccuracy in the opinion of the court below, in the statement that the case of Weston v. Stoddard, 137 N. Y. 119, 33 N. E. 62, was not considered in the opinion delivered in Ellerson v. Westcott, 148 N. Y. 149, 42 N. E. 540. We think the judgment of the special term is correct, and we concur in the reasons assigned therefor by Mr. Justice DYKMAN, with the exception indicated. Interlocutory judgment affirmed, with costs.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Holder v. Holder, 59 N.Y.S. 204, 40 A.D. 255 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1899).
59 N.Y.S. 204 (Holder v. Holder) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Ellerson v. . Westcott
42 N.E. 540 (New York Court of Appeals, 1896)
Weston v. . Stoddard
33 N.E. 62 (New York Court of Appeals, 1893)