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.
Milsom Rendering and Fertilizer Company, Respondent, v. William H. Baker, Appellant, 1897 — 153 N.Y. 687 · caselaw · US
General
Milsom Rendering and Fertilizer Company, Respondent, v. William H. Baker, Appellant
153 N.Y. 687·New York Court of Appeals·1897·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
Milsom Rendering and Fertilizer Company, Respondent, v. William H. Baker, Appellant.
Milsom Fertilizer Co. v. Baker, 10 App. Div. 581, affirmed.
(Argued June 22, 1897;
decided October 5, 1897.)
Appeal, by permission, from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered April 21,1897, which reversed an interlocutory judgment in favor of defendant, entered upon a decision of the Special Term, sustaining a demurrer to the complaint.
John O. Hilburn and John Cummins for appellant.
John L. Romer for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Judgment affirmed, with costs, on opinion below.
All concur, except Gray, J., absent.