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.
Max Merz, Appellant, v. The City of Brooklyn, Respondent, 1891 — 128 N.Y. 617 · caselaw · US
General
Max Merz, Appellant, v. The City of Brooklyn, Respondent
128 N.Y. 617·New York Court of Appeals·1891·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
Max Merz, Appellant, v. The City of Brooklyn, Respondent.
(Argued June 16, 1891,
decided June 25, 1891.)
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the City Court of Brooklyn, entered upon an order made October 29, 1890, which affirmed an order of Special Term, sustaining a demurrer to the complaint and affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered thereon.
James D. Bell for appellant.
Almet F. Jenks for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to affirm; no opinion.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.