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.
Appleton Sturgis, Appellant, v. The Crescent Jute Manufacturing Company, Respondent, 1890 — 123 N.Y. 639 · caselaw · US
General
Appleton Sturgis, Appellant, v. The Crescent Jute Manufacturing Company, Respondent
123 N.Y. 639·New York Court of Appeals·1890·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
Appleton Sturgis, Appellant, v. The Crescent Jute Manufacturing Company, Respondent.
(Argued October 6, 1890;
decided October 14, 1890.)
Appeal from order of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, made May 6, 1890, which reversed an order of Special Term denying a motion to set aside the service of a summons herein.
Adrian H. Joline for appellant.
George W. Wingate for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to affirm; no opinion.
All concur.
Order affirmed.