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.
Contracts · MBE-tested
Edward R. Dunham, Respondent, v. The Hastings Pavement Company, Appellant
189 N.Y. 500·New York Court of Appeals·1907·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
Edward R. Dunham, Respondent, v. The Hastings Pavement Company, Appellant.
Dunham v. Hastings Pavement Có., 118 App. Div. 137, affirmed.
(Argued May 21, 1907;
decided June 4, 1907.)
Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered March 15,1907, which affirmed an interlocutory judgment of Special Term ovérruling a demurrer to the complaint in an action to recover on contract.
. The following questions were certified:
“ 1. Does the third amended complaint herein state facts sufficient- to constitute a cause of action in the ‘ first cause of action’ therein set forth?
“ 2. Does the third amended complaint herein state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action in the ‘ second and separate cause of action ’ therein set forth ?
“ 3. Does the third amended complaint herein state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action in the ‘ third and separate cause of action5 therein set forth ? ”
Austen G. Fox and John S. Sheppard, Jr., for appellant.
Samuel TJntermyer, Louis Marshall, Abraham Benedict and Bichard II. Mitchell for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Order affirmed, with costs; questions certified answered in the affirmative; no opinion.
Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., O’Brien, Edward T. Bartlett, Haight, Vann, Hiscook and Chase, JJ.