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.
C. B. Keogh Manufacturing Company, Respondent, v. William Eisenberg, Appellant, 1896 — 149 N.Y. 592 · caselaw · US
General
C. B. Keogh Manufacturing Company, Respondent, v. William Eisenberg, Appellant
149 N.Y. 592·New York Court of Appeals·1896·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
C. B. Keogh Manufacturing Company, Respondent, v. William Eisenberg, Appellant.
Keogh Manfg. Co. v. Eisenberg, 7 Misc. Rep. 79, affirmed.
(Argued April 24, 1896;
decided May 26, 1896.)
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Court of Common Pleas for the city and county of New York, entered upon an order made January 2, 1894, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon the report of a referee.
Abraham L. Fromme for appellant.
Abner C. Thomas for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Judgment affirmed, with costs, on opinion below.
All concur.