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.
Jindrich WALDES, Ignatz Puc, Edward Merzinger and Sigmund Waldes, Copartners Doing Business under the Firm Name and Style of Waldes & Co., Plaintiffs Appellants, v. William SCHALL and Carl Muller, Copartners Doing Business under the Firm Name and Style of Muller, Schall & Co., Defendants Appellees, 1926 — 11 F.2d 453 · caselaw · US
General
Jindrich WALDES, Ignatz Puc, Edward Merzinger and Sigmund Waldes, Copartners Doing Business under the Firm Name and Style of Waldes & Co., Plaintiffs Appellants, v. William SCHALL and Carl Muller, Copartners Doing Business under the Firm Name and Style of Muller, Schall & Co., Defendants Appellees
11 F.2d 453·United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·1926
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
Jindrich WALDES, Ignatz Puc, Edward Merzinger and Sigmund Waldes, Copartners Doing Business under the Firm Name and Style of Waldes & Co., Plaintiffs Appellants, v. William SCHALL and Carl Muller, Copartners Doing Business under the Firm Name and Style of Muller, Schall & Co., Defendants Appellees.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Decided January 15, 1926.)
No. 12.
Appeal from final decree in equity entered in the District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Burnstine & Geist, of New York City (Julius M. Mayer, Henry C. Burnstine, and Frederick P. Warfield, all of New York City, of counsel), for appellants.
Avery & Whiting, of New York City (Jay E. Whiting and Earl B. Barnes, both of New York City, of counsel), for appellees,
HOUGH, MANTON and HAND, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
We are entirely satisfied with the findings of fact made by the master. They dispose of the ease, and decree [11 F.(2d) 444] is affirmed, with costs, on the master’s opimon.