General
Adolph Goldmark, Respondent, v. Magnolia Anti-Friction Metal Company, Appellant
175 N.Y. 476·New York Court of Appeals·1903·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
Adolph Goldmark, Respondent, v. Magnolia Anti-Friction Metal Company, Appellant.
Goldmark v. Magnolia Ante-Friction Metal Co., 71 App. Div. 617, affirmed.
(Submitted May 5, 1903;
decided May 19, 1903.)
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered May 15, 1902, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial.
Alexander S. Bacon and Murphy c& Metcalf for appellant.
John Frankenheimer and Constant & Coghill for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
Concur: Parker, Ch. J., Gray, O’Brien, Bartlett, Haight, Martin and Vann, JJ.