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.
Martin Mulligan, Respondent, v. The Knickerbocker Ice Company, Appellant, 1888 — 109 N.Y. 657 · caselaw · US
General
Martin Mulligan, Respondent, v. The Knickerbocker Ice Company, Appellant
109 N.Y. 657·New York Court of Appeals·1888·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
Martin Mulligan, Respondent, v. The Knickerbocker Ice Company, Appellant.
(Argued April 19, 1888;
decided May 4, 1888.)
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the City Court of Brooklyn, entered upon an order made January 25, 1886, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial.
Michael M. Forrest for appellant.
John, J. Leary for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to affirm; no opinion.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.