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.
Rochester Printing Company, Appellant, v. Margaret A. Marion, James Marion, John F. Kinney, as Assignee of Margaret A. Marion and James Marion for the Benefit of Creditors, and Patrick Fahy, Respondents; William D. Clark, Appellant, v. The Same, Respondents, 1898 — 156 N.Y. 670 · caselaw · US
General
Rochester Printing Company, Appellant, v. Margaret A. Marion, James Marion, John F. Kinney, as Assignee of Margaret A. Marion and James Marion for the Benefit of Creditors, and Patrick Fahy, Respondents; William D. Clark, Appellant, v. The Same, Respondents
156 N.Y. 670·New York Court of Appeals·1898·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
Rochester Printing Company, Appellant, v. Margaret A. Marion, James Marion, John F. Kinney, as Assignee of Margaret A. Marion and James Marion for the Benefit of Creditors, and Patrick Fahy, Respondents. William D. Clark, Appellant, v. The Same, Respondents.
Bochester Printing Co. v. Fahy, 88 Hun, 614, affirmed.
(Argued May 12, 1898;
decided June 7, 1898.)
Appeals from a judgment of the late General Term of the Supreme Court in the fifth judicial department, entered July 1,1895, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant Patrick Fahy, entered upon a decision of the court, dismissing the complaint as to him, on trial at the Monroe Equity Term.
David N. Salisbury for appellant.
Edward F. Wellington for respondent Fahy.
William B. Hale for respondent Kinney.
[MAJORITY]
Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
All concur.