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.
Walter Van Houten, Respondent, v. Charles Fleischmann, Appellant, 1894 — 142 N.Y. 624 · caselaw · US
General
Walter Van Houten, Respondent, v. Charles Fleischmann, Appellant
142 N.Y. 624·New York Court of Appeals·1894·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
Walter Van Houten, Respondent, v. Charles Fleischmann, Appellant.
(Argued March 8, 1894;
decided April 10, 1894.)
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Court of Common Pleas for the city and county of New York, entered upon an order made November 7,1892, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict, and also affirmed an order denying a motion for a new trial.
G. Bainbridge Smith for appellant.
James MoKeen for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to affirm; no opinion.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.