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.
James E. Clement, Respondent, v. The Congress Spring Company, Appellant, 1899 — 158 N.Y. 692 · caselaw · US
General
James E. Clement, Respondent, v. The Congress Spring Company, Appellant
158 N.Y. 692·New York Court of Appeals·1899·NY
All concur.
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 E. Clement, Respondent, v. The Congress Spring Company, Appellant.
(Argued January 25, 1899;
decided February 28, 1899.)
Appeal from a judgment and order of the late General Term of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered December 20, 1895, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict, and an order denying a motion for a new trial.
Clement v. Congress Spring Co., 91 Hun, 636, affirmed.
A. W. Shepherd, for appellant.
J. W. Houghton for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Judgment and order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
All concur.