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
David Perlman, Appellant, v. Moses Bernstein, Defendant, and Jacob W. Hammer, Respondent
179 N.Y. 531·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
David Perlman, Appellant, v. Moses Bernstein, Defendant, and Jacob W. Hammer, Respondent.
Peilman v. Bernstein, 93 App. Div. 335, affirmed.
(Argued June 3, 1904;
decided June 17, 1904.)
Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered April 27, 1904, which reversed an order of Special Term sustaining exceptions to the report,of a referee assessing defendant’s damages by reason of an injunction issued against him herein.
Jacob Manheim for appellant.
James J. Farren and Benjamin Patterson for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Order affirmed, with costs ; no opinion.
Concur : Parker, Cln J., Bartlett, Martin, Vann, Cullen and Werner, JJ. Absent: O’Brien, J.