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.
Paul Krotel, as Receiver, etc., Respondent, v. Henry F. Williams et al., Appellants, 1889 — 116 N.Y. 658 · caselaw · US
General
Paul Krotel, as Receiver, etc., Respondent, v. Henry F. Williams et al., Appellants
116 N.Y. 658·New York Court of Appeals·1889·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
Paul Krotel, as Receiver, etc., Respondent, v. Henry F. Williams et al., Appellants.
(Submitted October 15, 1889;
decided October 22, 1889.)
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered upon an order made the first Monday of October, 1886, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term; and, also, appeal from so much of said order as affirmed an order amending case and exceptions.
Thomas Darlington for appellants.
N. A. Halbert and William E. Millard for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to dismiss appeal from order and to affirm judgment; no opinion.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed and appeal from order dismissed.