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.
World's Dispensary Medical Association, Respondent, v. The Curtis Publishing Company, Appellant, 1905 — 181 N.Y. 522 · caselaw · US
General
World's Dispensary Medical Association, Respondent, v. The Curtis Publishing Company, Appellant
181 N.Y. 522·New York Court of Appeals·1905·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
World’s Dispensary Medical Association, Respondent, v. The Curtis Publishing Company, Appellant.
World’s Dispensary Medical Co. v. Curtis Publishing Co., 98 App. Div. 634, affirmed.
(Argued February 22, 1905;
decided March 17, 1905.)
Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered November 30, 1901, which affirmed an order of Special Term striking out certain portions of the answer as irrelevant.
The following question was certified : “ Should the allegations of the amended answer of the defendant, which were stricken out by the said order of the Special Term as irrelevant, have been so stricken out?”
Louis L. Babcock for appellant.
Morris Morey 'for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Order affirmed, with costs, and question certified answered in the affirmative; no opinion.
Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, O’Brien, Bartlett, Haight, Vann and Werner, JJ.