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 E. Gugel, Respondent, v. Bernard Isaacs, Appellant, 1900 — 162 N.Y. 636 · caselaw · US
General
Mary E. Gugel, Respondent, v. Bernard Isaacs, Appellant
162 N.Y. 636·New York Court of Appeals·1900·NY
Concur: Parker, Ch. J., Gray, Bartlett, Martin, Cullen and Werner, JJ. Not voting: Vann, J.
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 E. Gugel, Respondent, v. Bernard Isaacs, Appellant.
Gugel v. Isaacs, 21 App. Div. 503, affirmed.
(Argued March 19, 1900;
decided April 6, 1900.)
Appeal from adjudgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered in favor of plaintiff November 15, 1897, upon the submission of a controversy on an agreed statement of facts under section 1279 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
A. J. Skinner for appellant.
Robert McM. Gillespie and Stanley W. Dexter for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
. Judgment affirmed, with costs, on opinion below.
Concur: Parker, Ch. J., Gray, Bartlett, Martin, Cullen and Werner, JJ. Not voting: Vann, J.