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 St. John Wood-Working Company, Respondent, v. Samuel W. B. Smith et al., Appellants
178 N.Y. 629·New York Court of Appeals·1904·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 St. John Wood-Working Company, Respondent, v. Samuel W. B. Smith et al., Appellants.
St. John Wood- Worlúng Co. v. Smith, 82 App. Div. 348, affirmed.
(Argued May 10, 1904;
decided May 31, 1904.)
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered April 24, 1903, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term.
Thomas C. Ermever for appellants.
Charles W. Dayton and Joseph E. Bullen for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
Concur: Pabkeb, Ch. J., Gbay, Babtlett, Mabtin, Vann, Cullen and Webneb, JJ.