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.
James E. Nichols, as Trustee for Austin, Nichols & Co., and Mercantile National Bank, Respondent, v. Whitehall Lumber Company, Limited, Appellant; Whitehall Lumber Company, Limited, Appellant, v. James E. Nichols, as Trustee for Austin, Nichols & Co., and Mercantile National Bank, Respondent, 1905 — 180 N.Y. 552 · caselaw · US
General
James E. Nichols, as Trustee for Austin, Nichols & Co., and Mercantile National Bank, Respondent, v. Whitehall Lumber Company, Limited, Appellant; Whitehall Lumber Company, Limited, Appellant, v. James E. Nichols, as Trustee for Austin, Nichols & Co., and Mercantile National Bank, Respondent
180 N.Y. 552·New York Court of Appeals·1905·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
James E. Nichols, as Trustee for Austin, Nichols & Co., and Mercantile National Bank, Respondent, v. Whitehall Lumber Company, Limited, Appellant. Whitehall Lumber Company, Limited, Appellant, v. James E. Nichols, as Trustee for Austin, Nichols & Co., and Mercantile National Bank, Respondent.
Nichols v. Whitehall Lumber Co., 88 App. Div. 618; Whitehall Lumber Co. v. Nichols, 88 App. Div. 618, affirmed.
(Argued January 23, 1905;
decided February 21, 1905.)
Appeal from judgments of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in .the third, judicial department, entered November 21, 1903, affirming judgments in favor of the respondent in each of the above-entitled cases, entered upon a decision of the court .on trial at Special Term.
J. Scmford Potter and Otis A. Dennis for appellant.
Joseph B. Handy and Henry D. Hotchkiss for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Judgments affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
Concur: Cullen, Ch. ■ J., Gray, O’Brien, Bartlett, Haight, Vann and Werner, JJ.