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
Franklin H. Smith, Respondent, v. Joseph Hirsch et al., Appellants
186 N.Y. 590·New York Court of Appeals·1906·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
Franklin H. Smith, Respondent, v. Joseph Hirsch et al., Appellants.
Smith v. Hirsch, 103 Ap p. Div. 609, affirmed.
(Argued November 15, 1906;
decided December 4, 1906.)
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered April 14, 1905, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict directed by the court and an order denying a motion for a new trial in an action to recover rent alleged to be due for the use and occupation of certain premises.
Nathan Ottinger for appellants.
Joseph M. Williams for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
Concur: Cullen, Oh. J., Gray, Haight, Vann, Werner, Willard Bartlett and Hiscock, JJ.