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.
John Enright, Respondent, v. American Belgian Lamp Company, Appellant, 1903 — 175 N.Y. 486 · caselaw · US
General
John Enright, Respondent, v. American Belgian Lamp Company, Appellant
175 N.Y. 486·New York Court of Appeals·1903·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
John Enright, Respondent, v. American Belgian Lamp Company, Appellant.
Enright v. American Belgian Lamp Co., 72 App. Div. 683, affirmed.
(Argued May 11, 1908;
decided June 2, 1903.)
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered June 5, 1902, affirming a judgment in favor of' plaintiff entered upon a verdict.
J. Stewart Ross for appellant.
William B. Hurd, Jr., and Herman H Baker for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
J udgment affirmed, with costs ; no opinion.
Concur: Parker, Ch. J., Bartlett, Haigi-it, Martin, "Vann, Cullen and Werner, JJ.