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.
The City of New York, Respondent, v. Castle Braid Company, Appellant, 1906 — 184 N.Y. 583 · caselaw · US
Corporations
The City of New York, Respondent, v. Castle Braid Company, Appellant
184 N.Y. 583·New York Court of Appeals·1906·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
The City of New York, Respondent, v. Castle Braid Company, Appellant.
City of New York v. Castle Braid Co., 92 App. Div. 622, affirmed.
(Argued March 8, 1906;
decided March 27, 1906.)
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial. department, entered April' 25, 1904, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict directed by the court subject to its opinion and an. order denying a motion for a new trial.
Joseph M. Proshcmer, Jacob A. Gantor and John M. Stearns for appellant.
John J. Delany, Corporation Counsel (Theodore Connoly of counsel), for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., O’Brien, Haight, Vann, Willard Bartlett and Hisoook, JJ. Absent: Werner, J.