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.
Allan C. Dalzell, Appellant, v. The Fahys Watch Case Company, Respondent, 1894 — 141 N.Y. 570 · caselaw · US
General
Allan C. Dalzell, Appellant, v. The Fahys Watch Case Company, Respondent
141 N.Y. 570·New York Court of Appeals·1894·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
Allan C. Dalzell, Appellant, v. The Fahys Watch Case Company, Respondent.
(Argued January 15, 1894;
decided January 30, 1894.)
Appeal from order of the General Term of the Superior Court of the city of New York, made October 24, 1893, which affirmed an order of Special Term denying a motion by plaintiff for a discovery and inspection of defendant’s books»
Edmund T. Oldham for appellant.
William A. Jenner for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to dismiss appeal; no opinion.
All concur.
Appeal dismissed.