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.
John E. Andrus, Respondent, v. The National Sugar Refining Company et al., Appellants, 1906 — 183 N.Y. 580 · caselaw · US
General
John E. Andrus, Respondent, v. The National Sugar Refining Company et al., Appellants
183 N.Y. 580·New York Court of Appeals·1906·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
John E. Andrus, Respondent, v. The National Sugar Refining Company et al., Appellants.
(Argued January 12, 1906;
decided January 30, 1906.)
Andrus v. National Sugar Refining Co., 93 App. Div. 377, affirmed.
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered May 7, 1904. modifying, and affirming as modified, a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term.
Ralph E. Prime and Charles C. Paulding for appellants.
Isaac N. Mills for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., O’Brien, Haight, Vann, Werner and Hiscock, JJ. Not sitting: Willard Bartlett, J.