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.
Charles Jansen, Respondent, v. The Otto Stietz New York Glass Letter Company, Appellant, 1890 — 119 N.Y. 652 · caselaw · US
General
Charles Jansen, Respondent, v. The Otto Stietz New York Glass Letter Company, Appellant
119 N.Y. 652·New York Court of Appeals·1890·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
Charles Jansen, Respondent, v. The Otto Stietz New York Glass Letter Company, Appellant.
(Submitted February 28, 1890;
decided March 18, 1890.)
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered upon an order made June 19, 1888, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict, and affirmed an order denying a motion for a new trial
Edward P. Wilder for appellant.
Rufus L. Scott for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to affirm; no opinion.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.