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.
Gustav Schnaier et al., Respondents, v. Konrad Schmidt et al., Appellants, 1891 — 128 N.Y. 683 · caselaw · US
General
Gustav Schnaier et al., Respondents, v. Konrad Schmidt et al., Appellants
128 N.Y. 683·New York Court of Appeals·1891·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
Gustav Schnaier et al., Respondents, v. Konrad Schmidt et al., Appellants.
(Argued October 15, 1891;
decided October 30, 1891.)
Appeal from order of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, made March 13, 1891,, which affirmed an order of Special Term denying a motion to amend the judgment in the above-entitled action.
J. George Flammers for appellants.
Abram Kling for respondents.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to affirm; no opinion.
All concur.
Order affirmed.