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.
Edward Dexter, Appellant, v. Riverside and Oswego Mills, Respondent, 1892 — 133 N.Y. 684 · caselaw · US
General
Edward Dexter, Appellant, v. Riverside and Oswego Mills, Respondent
133 N.Y. 684·New York Court of Appeals·1892·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
Edward Dexter, Appellant, v. Riverside and Oswego Mills, Respondent.
(Argued May 27, 1892;
decided June 17, 1892.)
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered upon an order made July 7, 1891, which affirmed a judgment in favor of defendant, entered upon á decision of the court on trial at Circuit.
D. P. Lester for appellant.
H. E. Nichols for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to affirm; no opinion.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.