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.
Corporations
Harry J. Gould, Respondent, v. Lenox Corporation, Appellant
166 N.Y. 632·New York Court of Appeals·1901·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
Harry J. Gould, Respondent, v. Lenox Corporation, Appellant.
Gould v. Lenox Corporation, 37 App. Div. 253, affirmed.
(Argued April 2, 1901;
decided April 23, 1901.)
Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered February 9, 1899, which reversed a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict directed by the court, and an order denying a motion for a new trial and granted-.a new trial.
Edward C. Mason for appellant.
Nelson M. Redfield for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Order affirmed and judgment absolute ordered for plaintiff on the stipulation, with costs, on opinion below.
Concur: Parker, Ch. J., Gray, O’Brien, Haight, Landon, Cullen and Werner, JJ.