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.
Mitchell A. C. Levy, Appellant, v. George H. B. Hill, Respondent, 1903 — 174 N.Y. 536 · caselaw · US
General
Mitchell A. C. Levy, Appellant, v. George H. B. Hill, Respondent
174 N.Y. 536·New York Court of Appeals·1903·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
Mitchell A. C. Levy, Appellant, v. George H. B. Hill, Respondent.
Levy v. Rill, 70 App. Div. 95, affirmed.
(Argued March 20, 1903;
decided April 7, 1903.)
Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered March 13, 1902, sustaining defendant’s exceptions, ordered to be heard in the first instance by the Appellate Division, and granting a motion for a new trial.
John Frankenheimer for appellant.
J. La/ngdon Ward for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Order affirmed and judgment absolute ordered for defendant on the stipulation, with costs ; no opinion.
Concur: Parker, Ch. J., O’Brien, Bartlett, Haight, Vann, Cullen and Werner, JJ.