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 Phoenix Bridge Company, Respondent, v. The Keystone Bridge Company et al., Appellants, 1897 — 153 N.Y. 644 · caselaw · US
General
The Phoenix Bridge Company, Respondent, v. The Keystone Bridge Company et al., Appellants
153 N.Y. 644·New York Court of Appeals·1897·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 Phoenix Bridge Company, Respondent, v. The Keystone Bridge Company et al., Appellants.
Phoenix Bridge Co. v. Keystone Bridge Co., 10 App. Div. 176, affirmed.
(Argued April 19, 1897;
decided May 4, 1897.)
Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered November 25,1896, which modified, and, as modified, affirmed, an order of Special Term confirming the report of a referee.
11. B. Qlosson for appellants.
Delos Mg Curdy and John Yard for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Order affirmed on opinion of Ingbaham, J., below, with costs.
All concur.