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 Keyes, Appellant, v. The City of New York, Respondent, 1901 — 165 N.Y. 654 · caselaw · US
Corporations
Edward Keyes, Appellant, v. The City of New York, Respondent
165 N.Y. 654·New York Court of Appeals·1901·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 Keyes, Appellant, v. The City of New York, Respondent.
Keyes v. City of New York, 40 App. Div. 409, affirmed.
(Argued January 14, 1901;
decided January 29, 1901.)
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered May 23,1899, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court at a Trial Term.
David B. Hill and James M. Hunt for appellant.
John Whalen, Corporation Counsel (Theodore Cownoly and Terence Farley of counsel), for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Judgment affirmed, with costs, on opinion below.
Concur : Parker, Ch. J., Haight, Martin, Vann, Landon and Cullen, JJ. Not sitting : Bartlett, J.