Legal Opinion
Brady v. Hanson
New York Supreme Court
Decided March 15, 1910PublishedCited by 2 opinions
Action for partition by Harriet A. Brady and another against Ruth Hanson and others.
1Opinion of the Court
G1EGERICH, J.
The plaintiffs, as heirs at law of Joseph G. Hanson, deceased, bring this action for the partition of the premises known as No. 356 Bleeclcer street, in the borough of Manhattan, New York City, of which the said decedent died seised on or about August 1, 1903, in the city of Bayonne, county of Hudson, state of New Jersey, leaving him surviving no widow and the following heirs at law: Harriet A. Brady, one of the plaintiffs, a child; William G. Hanson, one of the plaintiffs, a grandchild, a son of James E. Hanson, a son, who predeceased Joseph G. Hanson; Joseph H. Hanson,…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Greene v. . GreeneNew York Court of Appeals · 1891
- Cuthbert v. . ChauvetNew York Court of Appeals · 1893
- Delafield v. . BarlowNew York Court of Appeals · 1887
- Smith v. . ChesebroughNew York Court of Appeals · 1903
- Stewart v. WoolleyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1907
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- St. Louis Union Trust Company v. ConantSupreme Court of Missouri · 1973
- Speckles v. MowinkelNebraska Supreme Court · 1935