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
Michael Fitzgerald, Respondent, v. The Supreme Council of The Catholic Mutual Benefit Association, Appellant
167 N.Y. 568·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
Michael Fitzgerald, Respondent, v. The Supreme Council of The Catholic Mutual Benefit Association, Appellant.
(Argued April 29, 1901;
decided May 14, 1901.)
Fitzgerald v. Supreme Council, 39 App. Div. 251, affirmed.
'Appf.at, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered March 22, 1899, reversing a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a verdict directed by the court and granting a new trial.
John Cunneen and John J. Hynes for appellant.
L. C. Rowe and E. H. Foley for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Order affirmed and judgment absolute ordered for plaintiff on the stipulation, with costs ; no opinion.
Concur: Parker, Ch. J., Gray Bartlett, Haight, Martin, Vann and Werner, JJ.