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.
Samuel G. Metcalf, as Receiver, etc., Appellant, v. Jose A. Del Valle, Impleaded, etc., Respondent, 1893 — 137 N.Y. 545 · caselaw · US
General
Samuel G. Metcalf, as Receiver, etc., Appellant, v. Jose A. Del Valle, Impleaded, etc., Respondent
137 N.Y. 545·New York Court of Appeals·1893·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
Samuel G. Metcalf, as Receiver, etc., Appellant, v. Jose A. Del Valle, Impleaded, etc., Respondent.
(Argued January 16, 1893;
decided January 31, 1893.)
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered upon an order made November 18, 1892, which affirmed a judgment in favor of defendant, entered upon an order of Special Term sustaining a demurrer to plaintiff’s complaint.
Charles A. Murphy for appellant.
L. S. Hulse for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to affirm on authority of Bostwick v. Menck (40 N. Y. 383); no opinion.
All concur, except Earl, J., dissenting.
Judgment affirmed.