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.
Security Trust Company of Rochester, Respondent, v. Wells, Fargo and Company Express, Appellant, 1904 — 178 N.Y. 620 · caselaw · US
Securities
Security Trust Company of Rochester, Respondent, v. Wells, Fargo and Company Express, Appellant
178 N.Y. 620·New York Court of Appeals·1904·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
Security Trust Company of Rochester, Respondent, v. Wells, Fargo and Company Express, Appellant.
Security Trust Go. v. Wells Fargo & Go. Express, 81 App. Div. 436, affirmed.
(Argued May 4, 1904;
decided May 20, 1904.)
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered March 20,1903, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict directed by the court and an order denying a motion for a new trial.
James M. E. O' Grady for appellant.
Ed/wa/rd Harris for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Judgment affirmed, with costs, on opinion below.
Concur: Parker, Oh. J., O’Brien, Bartlett, Martin, Yann and Cullen, JJ. Not voting : Gray, J.