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.
James Curran Manufacturing Company, Respondent, v. The Aultman & Taylor Machinery Company, Appellant, 1902 — 172 N.Y. 623 · caselaw · US
General
James Curran Manufacturing Company, Respondent, v. The Aultman & Taylor Machinery Company, Appellant
172 N.Y. 623·New York Court of Appeals·1902·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
James Curran Manufacturing Company, Respondent, v. The Aultman & Taylor Machinery Company, Appellant.
Curran Mfg. Co. v. Aultman & Taylor Co., 62 App. Div. 201, affirmed.
(Argued October 14, 1902;
decided October 28, 1902.)
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered June 22, 1901, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial.
William H. Bl/ym/yer and John Holden for appellant.
John J. JDelmvy for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Judgment affirmed, with costs, on prevailing opinion below.
Concur: Parker, Ch. J., Gray, Bartlett, Haight and Werner, JJ. Not voting: Martin, J. Dissenting: Cullen, J. ,