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.
General
The Metropolitan Concert Company (Limited), Appellant, v. Howard A. Sperry et al., Respondents
120 N.Y. 620·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
The Metropolitan Concert Company (Limited), Appellant, v. Howard A. Sperry et al., Respondents.
(Argued February 28, 1890;
decided March 18, 1890.)
Appeal from order o£ the General Term of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, made May 13, 1887, which reversed a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict directed by the court and ordered a new trial.
John 8. Davenport for appellant.
James L. Bishop for respondents.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to affirm ; no opinion.
All concur except Haight, J., not sitting.
Order affirmed and judgment absolute for defendants on stipulation.