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.
American Forcite Powder Manufacturing Company, Respondent, v. John Brady, Appellant, 1899 — 158 N.Y. 692 · caselaw · US
General
American Forcite Powder Manufacturing Company, Respondent, v. John Brady, Appellant
158 N.Y. 692·New York Court of Appeals·1899·NY
All concur.
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
American Forcite Powder Manufacturing Company, Respondent, v. John Brady, Appellant.
(Submitted January 25, 1899;
decided February 28, 1899.)
Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered May 5, 1896, reversing a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a verdict, and an order denying a motion for a new trial and granting a new trial.
Am. Forcite Powder Mfg. Co. v. Brady, 4 App. Div. 95, appeal dismissed.
Samuel G. Adams for appellant.
L. Laflin Kellogg and Alfred C. Petté for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Appeal dismissed, with costs, on the authority of Henavie v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co. (154 N. Y. 278).
All concur.