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.
Charles E. Hume, Respondent, v. The George C. Flint Company, Appellant, 1892 — 132 N.Y. 588 · caselaw · US
General
Charles E. Hume, Respondent, v. The George C. Flint Company, Appellant
132 N.Y. 588·New York Court of Appeals·1892·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
Charles E. Hume, Respondent, v. The George C. Flint Company, Appellant.
(Argued March 10, 1892;
decided March 25, 1892.)
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Court of Common Pleas for the city and county of New York, entered upon an order made March 6,1890, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered upon a verdict and also affirmed an order denying a motion for a new trial.
E. Gozmtryman for appellant.
John 11. V. Arnold for respondent. . ■
[MAJORITY]
Agree to affirm ; no opinion.
All concur, except Haight, J., not voting.
Judgment affirmed.