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.
Michigan Savings Bank, Respondent, v. George W. Millar et al., Appellants, 1906 — 186 N.Y. 606 · caselaw · US
General
Michigan Savings Bank, Respondent, v. George W. Millar et al., Appellants
186 N.Y. 606·New York Court of Appeals·1906·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
Michigan Savings Bank, Respondent, v. George W. Millar et al., Appellants.
Michigan Savings Bank v. Millar, 110 App. Div. 670, affirmed.
(Argued November 28, 1906;
decided December 18, 1906.)
Appeal from a judgment, entered February 10,1906, upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, overruling defendants’ exceptions, ordered to be heard" in the first instance by the Appellate Division, denying a motion for a new trial and directing judgment for plaintiff upon the verdict in an action by an assignee to recover the price of goods alleged to have been sold and delivered.
T. M. Tyng and Edward D. Dowling for appellants.
■Benjamin F. Blair for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Edward T. Bartlett, Haight, Vann, Willard Bartlett and Chase, JJ. Absent: O’Brien, J