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.
Mary A. Blanck, Respondent, v. Charles M. Preston, as Receiver of New York Building-Loan Banking Company, Appellant, 1907 — 188 N.Y. 560 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
Mary A. Blanck, Respondent, v. Charles M. Preston, as Receiver of New York Building-Loan Banking Company, Appellant
188 N.Y. 560·New York Court of Appeals·1907·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
Mary A. Blanck, Respondent, v. Charles M. Preston, as Receiver of New York Building-Loan Banking Company, Appellant.
(Argued March 1, 1907;
decided March 15, 1907.)
Blanck v. Preston, 113 App. Div. 911, affirmed.
Appeal from a, judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered July 7, 1906, modifying and affirming as modified a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term in an action to compel specific performance of a contract.
Alfred Hayes, Jr., and Gliarles W. Dayton, Jr., for appellant.
Edgar Y. Frothingham for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
Concur : Cullen, Ch. J., Edward T. Bartlett, Haight, Vann, Werner, Willard Bartlett and Hisoook, JJ.