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.
Buedingen Manufacturing Company, Respondent, v. Royal Trust Company of Chicago, Appellant, 1905 — 181 N.Y. 563 · caselaw · US
General
Buedingen Manufacturing Company, Respondent, v. Royal Trust Company of Chicago, Appellant
181 N.Y. 563·New York Court of Appeals·1905·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
Buedingen Manufacturing Company, Respondent, v. Royal Trust Company of Chicago, Appellant.
Buedingen Mfg. Co. v. Royal Trust Co., 90 App. Div. 267, affirmed.
(Argued April 17, 1905;
decided May 5, 1905.)
Appeal from a judgment, entered January 30, 1904, upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, overruling defendant’s exceptions ordered to be heard in the first instance by the Appellate Division, denying a motion for a new trial and directing judgment for plaintiff on the verdict.
Walter 8. Ilubbell for appellant.
Charles J. Bisséll and G. V. Fleckensiein for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, O’Brien, Bartlett, Haight, Vann and Werner, JJ.