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.
Melvin E. Shaw, Respondent, v. The Niagara White Grape Company, Appellant, 1900 — 162 N.Y. 644 · caselaw · US
General
Melvin E. Shaw, Respondent, v. The Niagara White Grape Company, Appellant
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
Melvin E. Shaw, Respondent, v. The Niagara White Grape Company, Appellant.
Shaw v. Niagara White Grape Co., 24 App. Div. 633, affirmed.
(Argued April 3, 1900;
decided April 17, 1900.)
’ Appeal from a judgment and order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered December 29, 1897, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintifE entered upon a verdict, and an order denying a motion for a new trial.
David Millar for appellant.
Thomas A. Kirby for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Judgment and order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
Concur: Parker, Ch. J., Gray, O’Brien, Haight, Landon, Cullen and Werner, JJ.