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.
H. Koehler & Co., Appellant, v. James W. Brady, Respondent; Peter Doelger, Intervening, Respondent. (Actions 1 and 2.), 1905 — 181 N.Y. 503 · caselaw · US
General
H. Koehler & Co., Appellant, v. James W. Brady, Respondent; Peter Doelger, Intervening, Respondent. (Actions 1 and 2.)
181 N.Y. 503·New York Court of Appeals·1905·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
H. Koehler & Co., Appellant, v. James W. Brady, Respondent; Peter Doelger, Intervening, Respondent. (Actions 1 and 2.)
Koehler (6 Co. v. Brady, 87 App. Div. 326, affirmed; Koehler & Co. v. Brady, 78 App. Div. 644, 82 App. Div. 279, appeals dismissed.
(Argued January 17, 1905;
decided February 28, 1905.)
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered December 29, 1903, modifying and affirming as modified a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term ; also appeal from an order of said Appellate Division made January 23, 1903, denying a motion to dismiss the appeal of the defendant Brady from the said judgment of the Special Term to the Appellate Division ; also appeal from an order of the said Appellate Division made April 17, 1903, granting a motion of Peter Doelger to be made a party herein and permitting him to prosecute an appeal from the judgment of the Special Term herein.
Emanuel J. Myers for appellant.
Louis Marshall, Moses Weinman and Abraham Benedict for respondents.
[MAJORITY]
Judgment affirmed, with costs; appeals from orders dismissed, without costs; no opinion.
Concur: Cullen,' Ch. J., Gray, O’Brien, Bartlett, Haight, Vann and Werner, JJ.