Brower v. Orser
The Superior Court of New York City
This case comes before the Court, on a verdict taken for the plaintiff, valuing the property in question at the sum of $200, subject to the opinion of the Court at General Term, with liberty to the Court to enter judgment of dismissal, and with liberty to either party to turn the case into a bill of exceptions. The cause was tried in May, 1854, before the late Chief-Justice Oakley, and a jury.
Read the full summary
This case comes before the Court, on a verdict taken for the plaintiff, valuing the property in question at the sum of $200, subject to the opinion of the Court at General Term, with liberty to the Court to enter judgment of dismissal, and with liberty to either party to turn the case into a bill of exceptions. The cause was tried in May, 1854, before the late Chief-Justice Oakley, and a jury. Certain exceptions were taken by the defendant to his rulings, in rejecting testimony, which were not pressed on the argument, and which the Court, at General Term, thought were clearly untenable. The…
1Opinion of the CourtBy the Court. Hoffman, J.
A similar question to that which arises in the present case, has been before the Court, in the *367late cases of Freeman v. Orser, (5 Duer, 476,) and Burger v. White, (November Term, 1857, Ante p. 92.) Under what circumstances, property, resulting from the earnings and labor of a wife, can be exempt from seizure by the husband’s creditors, is the point there and here raised. Whether the present case would be governed by the one or the other of those decisions—whether it would fall within the general principle of the former, or the exception established in the latter, would require a careful…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Freeman v. OrserThe Superior Court of New York City · 1856
3Cited by4 opinions
- Mason v. BreslinThe Superior Court of New York City · 1870
- Purchase v. New York Exchange BankThe Superior Court of New York City · 1863
- Currie v. CowlesThe Superior Court of New York City · 1860
- Stevens v. . HauserNew York Court of Appeals · 1868