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
In the Application for the Issue of a Subpoena, etc., to Bache McE. Whitlock
115 N.Y. 651·New York Court of Appeals·1889·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 Application for the Issue of a Subpoena, etc., to Bache McE. Whitlock.
(Argued June 18, 1889;
decided June 28, 1889.)
Appeal from order of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, made January 28,1889, which reversed an order of Special Term requiring witness to produce writings.
C. E. Tracy for appellants.
William C. Beecher for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to dismiss appeal; no opinion.
All concur.
Appeal dismissed.