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.
In the Matter of the Voluntary Dissolution of Malcom Brewing Company. Henry Doscher, Appellant; C. Henry Offerman et al., as Receivers, Respondents, 1904 — 179 N.Y. 517 · caselaw · US
General
In the Matter of the Voluntary Dissolution of Malcom Brewing Company. Henry Doscher, Appellant; C. Henry Offerman et al., as Receivers, Respondents
179 N.Y. 517·New York Court of Appeals·1904·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
In the Matter of the Voluntary Dissolution of Malcom Brewing Company. Henry Doscher, Appellant; C. Henry Offerman et al., as Receivers, Respondents.
Matter of Malcom Brewing Co., 92 App. Div. 614, appeal dismissed.
(Argued May 31, 1904;
decided June 7, 1904.)
Motion to dismiss an appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered March 22, 1904, which affirmed an order of Special Term passing the accounts of the receivers of the Malcom Brewing Company. . .
The motion was made upon the grounds that the appeal had not been perfected by the tiling of an undertaking and that the order appealed from was not of right appealable to the Court of Appeals.
William, H. Hamilton for motion.
Henry F. Cochrane opposed.
[MAJORITY]
Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with costs and ten dollars costs of motion on the ground that the court below unanimously affirmed and the only question raised relates to the amount of allowance.