Contracts · MBE-tested

Walter G. Rogers, Respondent, v. Colin H. Ball, Appellant

145 A.D. 952·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·1911·NY

All concurred, except Sewell, J., dissenting, on the ground, that no contract of purchase was proven.

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

Walter G. Rogers, Respondent, v. Colin H. Ball, Appellant. [MAJORITY] Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concurred, except Sewell, J., dissenting, on the ground, that no contract of purchase was proven.

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.