Sheldon v. Hoffnagle

New York Supreme Court

Sheldon v. Hoffnagle

4 N.Y.S. 287, 51 Hun 478, 1889 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 286

New York Supreme Court·Decided February 7, 1889·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Ingalls, J.

The decision by the court at special term was quite as favorable to the plaintiff as the facts and law would warrant, and the judgment entered in the action should be affirmed, with costs. The reasons assigned by the learned justice who tried the action as they appear in his opinion, are so far satisfactory as to render it unnecessary to further discuss the questions involved. 27either the facts nor the law establish in favor of the plaintiff any right or equity superior to that which the judgment herein secures to her. All concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Ingalls, J.

The decision by the court at special term was quite as favorable to the plaintiff as the facts and law would warrant, and the judgment entered in the action should be affirmed, with costs. The reasons assigned by the learned justice who tried the action as they appear in his opinion, are so far satisfactory as to render it unnecessary to further discuss the questions involved. 27either the facts nor the law establish in favor of the plaintiff any right or equity superior to that which the judgment herein secures to her. All concur.

Sheldon v. Hoffnagle, 4 N.Y.S. 287, 51 Hun 478, 1889 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 286 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1889).

Pincite

4 N.Y.S. 287 (Sheldon v. Hoffnagle) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related