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.
The Architectural Iron Works, Appellant, v. The City of Brooklyn, Respondent, 1882 — 89 N.Y. 639 · caselaw · US
General
The Architectural Iron Works, Appellant, v. The City of Brooklyn, Respondent
89 N.Y. 639·New York Court of Appeals·1882·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
The Architectural Iron Works, Appellant, v. The City of Brooklyn, Respondent.
(Argued November 28, 1881;
decided June 30, 1882.)
Joshua M. Van Cott for appellant.
Wm. G. De Witt for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to affirm order and for judgment absolute against • appellant on stipulation. No, opinion.
All concur.
Order affirmed, and judgment accordingly,