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.
Edward A. Cox, Respondent, v. John Halloran, Appellant, 1904 — 179 N.Y. 533 · caselaw · US
General
Edward A. Cox, Respondent, v. John Halloran, Appellant
179 N.Y. 533·New York Court of Appeals·1904·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
Edward A. Cox, Respondent, v. John Halloran, Appellant.
Cox v. IIalloran, 82 App. Div. 639, appeal dismissed.
(Argued June 16, 1904;
decided June 17, 1904.)
Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered June 18, 1903, which reversed an order of the Dutchess County Court setting aside a verdict in favor of plaintiff and granting a new trial and directed judgment on the verdict.
W. E. Hoysradt for appellant.
Walter Farrington for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Appeal dismissed, with costs ; no opinion.
Concur : Parker, Oh. J., Gray, Bartlett, Martin, Yann, Cullen and Werner, JJ.