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.
Edward Freeman, Plaintiff, v. Jacob Rothschild, Appellant, and Charles L. Eidlitz, Respondent, Impleaded with Others, 1901 — 168 N.Y. 589 · caselaw · US
General
Edward Freeman, Plaintiff, v. Jacob Rothschild, Appellant, and Charles L. Eidlitz, Respondent, Impleaded with Others
168 N.Y. 589·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
Edward Freeman, Plaintiff, v. Jacob Rothschild, Appellant, and Charles L. Eidlitz, Respondent, Impleaded with Others.
Ereeman v. Bothsehild, 49 App. Div. 643, affirmed.
(Submitted June 11, 1901;
decided July 10, 1901.)
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered March 22, 1900, modifying, and affirming as modified, a judgment in favor of defendant Charles L. Eidlitz entered upon the report of a referee.
Charles F. Brown and John J. Crawford for appellant.
Frederick Hulse and Ernest F. EidUtz for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
Concur: Parker, Oh. J., O’Brien, Bartlett, Haight, Vann, Landon and Cullen, JJ.