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.
Earl G. Watrous, Respondent, v. The Walter A. Wood Mowing and Reaping Machine Company, Appellant, 1897 — 152 N.Y. 636 · caselaw · US
General
Earl G. Watrous, Respondent, v. The Walter A. Wood Mowing and Reaping Machine Company, Appellant
152 N.Y. 636·New York Court of Appeals·1897·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
Earl G. Watrous, Respondent, v. The Walter A. Wood Mowing and Reaping Machine Company, Appellant.
Watrous v. W. A. Wood M. & R. M. Co., 84 Hun, 607, affirmed.
(Argued March 3, 1897;
decided March 16, 1897.)
Appeal from a judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered February 18, 1895, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon the report.of a referee.
George B. Wellington for appellant.
James Lansing for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
All concur.