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.
John Kam, Respondent, v. The Fred Hower Brewing Company (Limited) and Henrietta Benjamin, Impleaded, etc., Appellants, 1896 — 151 N.Y. 647 · caselaw · US
Corporations
John Kam, Respondent, v. The Fred Hower Brewing Company (Limited) and Henrietta Benjamin, Impleaded, etc., Appellants
151 N.Y. 647·New York Court of Appeals·1896·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
John Kam, Respondent, v. The Fred Hower Brewing Company (Limited) and Henrietta Benjamin, Impleaded, etc., Appellants.
(Submitted December 21, 1896;
decided December 24, 1896.)
Motion for an order designating this action as a preferred cause and placing it upon the calendar as such, under subdivision 4, section 791 of the Code of Civil Procedure, upon the ground that the pendency of the action prevents a final settlement of the accounts of the receivers of the defendant The Fred Hower Brewing Company, a dissolved corporation.
Rufus O. Catlin for motion.
[MAJORITY]
Motion denied, without costs, on opinion in Colton v. N. Y. El. R. R. Co. (151 N. Y. 266).