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.
Frederick Marx et al., Respondents, v. Eugene A. Gross et al., Appellants, 1894 — 142 N.Y. 678 · caselaw · US
General
Frederick Marx et al., Respondents, v. Eugene A. Gross et al., Appellants
142 N.Y. 678·New York Court of Appeals·1894·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
Frederick Marx et al., Respondents, v. Eugene A. Gross et al., Appellants.
(Argued April 26, 1894;
decided June 5, 1894.)
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Superior Court of the city of New York,'entered upon an order made March 6, 1893, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiffs entered upon the report of a referee.
George M. Thomson and Austen G. Fox for appellants.
George A. Black for respondents.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to affirm on opinion below.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.