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 Application of James J. Ennis, Respondent, v. The Federal Brewing Company, Appellant; In the Matter of the Application of Richard A. Rendich, Respondent, v. The Federal Brewing Company, Appellant, 1908 — 192 N.Y. 570 · caselaw · US
General
In the Matter of the Application of James J. Ennis, Respondent, v. The Federal Brewing Company, Appellant; In the Matter of the Application of Richard A. Rendich, Respondent, v. The Federal Brewing Company, Appellant
192 N.Y. 570·New York Court of Appeals·1908·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 Application of James J. Ennis, Respondent, v. The Federal Brewing Company, Appellant. In the Matter of the Application of Richard A. Rendich, Respondent, v. The Federal Brewing Company, Appellant.
Matter of Ennis v. Federal Brewing Co., 123 App. Div. 691, affirmed.
Matter of Rendich v. Federal Brewing Co., 123 App. Div. 691, affirmed.
(Argued May 19, 1908;
decided June 2, 1908.)
Appeal in each of the above-entitled proceedings from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered January;10, 1908, which affirmed an order of Special Term granting an application for the appointment of appraisers to appraise the value of stock of the Federal Brewing Company held by the petitioner.
Thaddeus D. Kenneson for appellant.
Francis A. McCloskey for respondents.
[MAJORITY]
Orders affirmed, with costs in one case, on opinion below.
Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Vann, Werner, Willard Bartlett, Hiscock and Chase, JJ.