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
William Fernschild, Appellant, v. D. G. Yuengling Brewing Company, Respondent
154 N.Y. 743·New York Court of Appeals·1897·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
William Fernschild, Appellant, v. D. G. Yuengling Brewing Company, Respondent.
Reported below, 15 App. Div. 29.
(Argued October 18, 1897;
decided October 26, 1897.)
Motion to substitute the receiver of the D. G. Yuengling Brewing Company as sole defendant herein, in place of the D. G. Yuengling Brewing Company dissolved, and also to prefer, under section 791, subdivisions 4, 5, of the Code of Civil Procedure, and under section 10, chapter 378, Laws of 1883, an appeal, by permission, from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered March 9, 1897, which reversed a judgment of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court in the city of New York in favor of plaintiff, and affirmed a judgment of the General Term of the City Court of New York, in favor of defendant.
Forster, Hotaling da Klenhe for motion.
Moses Weinman opposed.
[MAJORITY]
Motion granted.