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.
Jules Warnier et al., Respondents, v. Otto Boessneck et al., Appellants, 1899 — 159 N.Y. 538 · caselaw · US
General
Jules Warnier et al., Respondents, v. Otto Boessneck et al., Appellants
159 N.Y. 538·New York Court of Appeals·1899·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
Jules Warnier et al., Respondents, v. Otto Boessneck et al., Appellants.
Warnier v. Boessneck, 5 App. Div. 240, affirmed.
(Argued April 21,1899;
decided May 12, 1899.)
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered October 8, 1896, upon an order affirming an interlocutory judgment in favor of plaintiffs entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term.
Thomas J. Falls for appellants.
Pay son Merrill for respondents.
[MAJORITY]
Judgment and order affirmed, with costs, on opinion below.
All concur.