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.
William R. Montgomery, Respondent, v. The Brush Electric Illuminating Company of New York, Appellant, 1901 — 168 N.Y. 657 · caselaw · US
General
William R. Montgomery, Respondent, v. The Brush Electric Illuminating Company of New York, Appellant
168 N.Y. 657·New York Court of Appeals·1901·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
William R. Montgomery, Respondent, v. The Brush Electric Illuminating Company of New York, Appellant.
Montgomery v. Brush Electric III. Co., 48 App. Div. 18, affirmed.
(Argued October 16, 1901;
decided November 1, 1901.)
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered February 21, 1900, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon the report of a referee.
Noel Gale for appellant.
William G. Wilson and Philyp 8. Dean for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Judgment affirmed, with costs, on opinion below.
Concur: Gray, Bartlett, Martin, Yann, Cullen and Wern.er, JJ. Absent: Parker, Ch. J.