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.
John M. Holmes, Appellant, v. The Union Telegraph and Telephone Company, Respondent, 1893 — 139 N.Y. 651 · caselaw · US
General
John M. Holmes, Appellant, v. The Union Telegraph and Telephone Company, Respondent
139 N.Y. 651·New York Court of Appeals·1893·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
John M. Holmes, Appellant, v. The Union Telegraph and Telephone Company, Respondent.
(Submitted October 11, 1893;
decided October 27, 1893.)
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered upon an order made December 17,1891, which affirmed a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a verdict.
A. J. Cheritree for appellant.
Richard L. Hand for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to affirm on opinion below.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.