General
James Armstrong, Respondent, v. Borden's Condensed Milk Company et al., Respondents, and Otto E. Reimer Company, Appellant
174 N.Y. 510·New York Court of Appeals·1903·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
James Armstrong, Respondent, v. Borden’s Condensed Milk Company et al., Respondents, and Otto E. Reimer Company, Appellant.
Armstrong v. Borden's Condensed, Milk Co., 65 App. Div. 503, reversed.
(Argued February 23, 1903;
decided March 6, 1903.)
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered December 20, 1901, affirming a judgment of Special Term in an action to foreclose certain mechanics’ liens.
John T. Sachett for appellant.
Henry Re Forest Baldwin and Herbert O. Lalcin for respondents.
[MAJORITY — O’Brien, J.]
O’Brien, J.
This case involves the same question as the case of Kane Company v. Kinney, which we have just decided. (174 N. Y. 69.) The two cases were argued together and are governed by the same legal principles. On the authority of that case the judgment of the Appellate Division must be reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.
Paekeb, Oh. J., Babtlett, Mabtin, Yann, Cullen and Webneb, JJ., concur.
Judgment reversed, etc.