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.
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. E. Remington & Sons, Appellants and Respondents. In the Matter of the Claim of the Lee Arms Company, 1891 — 126 N.Y. 654 · caselaw · US
General
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. E. Remington & Sons, Appellants and Respondents. In the Matter of the Claim of the Lee Arms Company
126 N.Y. 654·New York Court of Appeals·1891·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
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. E. Remington & Sons, Appellants and Respondents. In the Matter of the Claim of the Lee Arms Company.
(Argued April 13, 1891;
decided April 28, 1891.)
Cross-appeals from order of the General Term of the ■Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, made Febjraary 25, 1891, which modified, and affirmed as modified, an order of Special Term directing the payment of certain royalties.
William B. PEornblower for the Lee Arms Co., appellant ¡and respondent.
Thomas Richardson for receiver, etc., respondent and .■appellant.
Charles T\ Tabor, Attorney-General, for respondents.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to affirm on opinion below.
All concur, except O’Brien, J., not sitting.
Order affirmed.