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 Bank of Montreal, Appellant, v. The Fidelity National Bank, Respondent, 1889 — 112 N.Y. 667 · caselaw · US
General
The Bank of Montreal, Appellant, v. The Fidelity National Bank, Respondent
112 N.Y. 667·New York Court of Appeals·1889·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 Bank of Montreal, Appellant, v. The Fidelity National Bank, Respondent.
(Argued January 15, 1889;
decided January 29, 1889.)
Appeal from order of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, made June 19, 1888, which reversed an order of Special Term denying a motion to vacate an attachment, "and vacated and set aside the attachment.
John B. Whiting for appellant.
Stephen A. Walker for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to affirm on authority of Pacific National Bank. v. Mixter (124 U. S. 721) ; no opinion.
All concur.
Order affirmed.