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.
Société des Huiles D'Olive de Nice, Appellant, v. James Rorke, Respondent, 1899 — 158 N.Y. 677 · caselaw · US
General
Société des Huiles D'Olive de Nice, Appellant, v. James Rorke, Respondent
158 N.Y. 677·New York Court of Appeals·1899·NY
All concur.
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
Société des Huiles D’Olive de Nice, Appellant, v. James Rorke, Respondent.
(Argued January 18, 1899;
decided February 3, 1899.)
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department,, entered May 18, 1896, upon an order affirming a judgment in favor'of defendant entered upon a decision of the court, on trial: at Special Term.
Société des Huiles d’Olive v. Rorke, 5 App. Div. 175, affirmed.
James & Thomas H. Troy for appellant.
George A. Strong and Martin & Smith for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Judgment and order affirmed, with costs, on opinion below.
All concur.