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.
William Ottmann and Company (Incorporated) et al., Appellants, v. Marvelle W. Cooper et al., Respondents, 1897 — 151 N.Y. 652 · caselaw · US
General
William Ottmann and Company (Incorporated) et al., Appellants, v. Marvelle W. Cooper et al., Respondents
151 N.Y. 652·New York Court of Appeals·1897·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
William Ottmann and Company (Incorporated) et al., Appellants, v. Marvelle W. Cooper et al., Respondents.
Ottmann & Go. v. Oooper, 81 Hun, 580, affirmed.
(Argued December 15, 1896;
decided January 19, 1897.)
Appeal from a judgment of the Glen eral • Term of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered November 27, 1894, which affirmed a judgment in favor of defendants entered upon a decision of the court dismissing the complaint on trial at Special Term.
Joseph Fettretch for appellants.
Henry L. Stimson, Elihu Root, Samuel B. Clarke and Albert H. Gleason for respondents.
[MAJORITY]
Judgment affirmed, with costs, on opinion of Follett, J., below.
All concur.