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.
Gottlob Gunther v. Rudolph Mayer et al., Respondents; Manning, Maxwell and Moore et al., Appellants, 1893 — 138 N.Y. 654 · caselaw · US
General
Gottlob Gunther v. Rudolph Mayer et al., Respondents; Manning, Maxwell and Moore et al., Appellants
138 N.Y. 654·New York Court of Appeals·1893·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
Gottlob Gunther v. Rudolph Mayer et al., Respondents; Manning, Maxwell and Moore et al., Appellants.
(Argued June 5, 1893;
decided June 20, 1893.)
Appeal from order of the General Term of the Supreme Oourt in the second judicial department, made February 14, 1893, which reversed an order of Special Term confirming the report of a referee in proceedings to determine as to the disposition of surplus moneys arising on sale herein.
P. Q. Eckerson and Frederic Q. Dow for appellants.
Thomas Allison for respondents.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to affirm; no opinion.
All concur.
Order affirmed.