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.
Charles W. Cooke, Respondent, v. The Lalance Grosjean Manufacturing Company, Appellant, 1885 — 99 N.Y. 649 · caselaw · US
General
Charles W. Cooke, Respondent, v. The Lalance Grosjean Manufacturing Company, Appellant
99 N.Y. 649·New York Court of Appeals·1885·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
Charles W. Cooke, Respondent, v. The Lalance Grosjean Manufacturing Company, Appellant.
(Argued April 16, 1885;
decided June 2, 1885.)
Decided on authority of Hickey v. Taaffe (ante, p. 204).
Samuel D. Morris for appellant.
Charles J. Patterson for respondent.
[MAJORITY — Danforth, J.,]
Danforth, J.,
reads for reversal and new trial.
All concur.
Judgment reversed.