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.
Annette B. Markoe, Respondent, v. Tiffany & Company, Appellant, 1900 — 163 N.Y. 565 · caselaw · US
General
Annette B. Markoe, Respondent, v. Tiffany & Company, Appellant
163 N.Y. 565·New York Court of Appeals·1900·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
Annette B. Markoe, Respondent, v. Tiffany & Company, Appellant.
Markoe v. Tiffany & Co., 26 App. Div. 95, affirmed.
(Argued April 6, 1900;
decided May 15, 1900.)
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered March 1, 1898, modifying, and affirming as modified, a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict, and affirming an order denying a motion for a new trial.
Chanfles E. Miller for appellant.
Flamen B. Candler and Robert W. Candler for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Judgment affirmed,' with costs, on opinion "below.
Concur: Gray, Haight, Landon, Cullen and Werner, JJ. Not voting: Parker, Ch. J., and O’Brien, J.