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.
Patrick J. Hogue, Respondent, v. Morris W. Simonson et al., Appellants, 1907 — 188 N.Y. 637 · caselaw · US
General
Patrick J. Hogue, Respondent, v. Morris W. Simonson et al., Appellants
188 N.Y. 637·New York Court of Appeals·1907·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
Patrick J. Hogue, Respondent, v. Morris W. Simonson et al., Appellants.
(Argued May 8, 1907;
decided May 28, 1907.)
Hogue v. Simonson, 114 App. Div. 906, affirmed.
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered June 7, 1906, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial in an action to recover for an alleged breach of warranty.
■ M. A. Leary for appellants.
Monroe Wheeler for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Judgment affirmed, with-costs; no opinion.
Concur : Gray, O’Brien. Yank, Werner, Willard Bartlett and Chase, JJ. Absent: Culler, Ch. J.