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.
The Rach's Mashing Process Company, Respondent, v. Michael Seitz, Appellant, 1899 — 158 N.Y. 700 · caselaw · US
General
The Rach's Mashing Process Company, Respondent, v. Michael Seitz, Appellant
158 N.Y. 700·New York Court of Appeals·1899·NY
All concur.
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
The Rach’s Mashing Process Company, Respondent, v. Michael Seitz, Appellant.
(Argued February 2, 1899;
decided February 28, 1899.)
-Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered October 27, 1896, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict directed by the court.
Rach’s M. P. Co. v. Seitz, 9 App. Div. 626, affirmed.
J. J. Bennett for appellant.
Alfred E. Hinriohs and Louis A Wagner for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
All concur.