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.
Rachel SUDIAH, Appellant, v. MANHATTAN SHIRT COMPANY, Appellee; SAME v. Ferdinand JACOBSON et al., Appellees, 1932 — 56 F.2d 425 · caselaw · US
General
Rachel SUDIAH, Appellant, v. MANHATTAN SHIRT COMPANY, Appellee; SAME v. Ferdinand JACOBSON et al., Appellees
56 F.2d 425·United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·1932
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
Rachel SUDIAH, Appellant, v. MANHATTAN SHIRT COMPANY, Appellee. SAME v. Ferdinand JACOBSON et al., Appellees.
Nos. 214, 215.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Feb. 1, 1932.
Warfield, Fraser & Brown, of New York City (Donald Brown and Griffith Beems, both of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
Munn, Anderson, Stanley, Foster & Liddy, of New York City (T. Hart Anderson and Albert J. Clark, both of New York City, of counsel), for appellees P. Jacobson & Son.
Briesen & Schrenk, of New York City (Fred A. Klein, of New York City, of counsel), for appellee Manhattan Shirt Co.
Before MANTON, SWAN, and AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PEE CURIAM.]
PEE CURIAM.
Decree [56 F.(2d) 421] affirmed.