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
Cornelius Beecher, Plaintiff, v. John Schuback, Respondent; Herman Kertscher et al., Impleaded, Appellants
158 N.Y. 687·New York Court of Appeals·1899·NY
All concur.
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
Cornelius Beecher, Plaintiff, v. John Schuback, Respondent; Herman Kertscher et al., Impleaded, Appellants.
(Argued January 23, 1899;
decided February 28, 1899.)
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered March 6, 1896, upon an order affirming a judgment entered upon the report of a referee.
Beecher v. Schuback, 1 App. Div. 359, affirmed.
Henry W. Smith and John C. Coleman for appellants.
Charles B. Meyer, for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Judgment and order affirmed, with costs, on opinion below.
All concur.