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.
Norbeth Pfeffer, Appellant and Respondent, v. Philip Kling, Respondent and Appellant, et al., Respondent, 1902 — 171 N.Y. 668 · caselaw · US
General
Norbeth Pfeffer, Appellant and Respondent, v. Philip Kling, Respondent and Appellant, et al., Respondent
171 N.Y. 668·New York Court of Appeals·1902·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
Norbeth Pfeffer, Appellant and Respondent, v. Philip Kling, Respondent and Appellant, et al., Respondent.
Pfeffer v. Kling, 58 App. Div. 179, affirmed.
(Argued May 22, 1902;
decided June 10, 1902.)
Cboss-appeals from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered February 23, 1901, modifying and affirming as modified a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a Verdict directed by the court.
Clarence L. Barber for plaintiff, appellant and respondent.
Stillman F. Kneeland and Charles E. Thorn for Philip Kling, respondent and appellant.
Thomas D. Husted, respondent, in person.
[MAJORITY]
Judgment affirmed, without costs to either party; no opinion.
Concur: Parker, Ch. J., Bartlett, Haight, Martin, Vann, Cullen and Werner, JJ.