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
Ebling Brewing Company, Respondent, v. New York City Interborough Railway Company, Appellant
186 N.Y. 524·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
Ebling Brewing Company, Respondent, v. New York City Interborough Railway Company, Appellant.
Ebling Brewing Co. v. New York City Interborough Ry. Co., 112 App. Div. 912, appeal dismissed.
(Argued October 3, 1906;
decided October 9, 1906.)
Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered April 6, 1906, which affirmed an order of Special Term granting a motion for the continuance of an injunction gyendente lite.
George W. Wiekersham and Woel Gale for appellant.
Harold Wathan for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Appeal dismissed, without costs; no opinion.
Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Edward T. Bartlett, Haight, Yann, Werner, Willard Bartlett and Chase, JJ.