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.
Alfred Shrimpton & Sons (Limited), Respondent, v. Simon Eschwege, Appellant, 1899 — 158 N.Y. 731 · caselaw · US
General
Alfred Shrimpton & Sons (Limited), Respondent, v. Simon Eschwege, Appellant
158 N.Y. 731·New York Court of Appeals·1899·NY
All concur, except O’Brien and Vann, JJ., not voting.
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
Alfred Shrimpton & Sons (Limited), Respondent, v. Simon Eschwege, Appellant.
(Argued March 14, 1899;
decided April 18, 1899.)
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered November 23, 1896, upon an order affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict directed by the court.
Shrimpton & Sons v. Eschwege, 10 App. Div. 56, affirmed.
Edward W. S. Johnston for appellant.
Charles F. Bridge and George C. Coffin, for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Judgment and order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
All concur, except O’Brien and Vann, JJ., not voting.