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.
Louis P. de Bautte et al., Respondents, v. Herman A. Curiel et al., Appellants, 1894 — 142 N.Y. 635 · caselaw · US
General
Louis P. de Bautte et al., Respondents, v. Herman A. Curiel et al., Appellants
142 N.Y. 635·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
Louis P. de Bautte et al., Respondents, v. Herman A. Curiel et al., Appellants.
(Argued March 14, 1894;
decided April 10, 1894.)
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Superior Court of the city of New York, entered upon an order made January 3, 1893, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiffs entered upon a verdict, and also affirmed an order denying a motion for a new trial.
E. J. Myers for appellants.
Milton S. Guiterman for respondents.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to affirm; no opinion.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.