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.
Adolph Goldmark, Appellant, v. Magnolia Metal Company, Respondent, 1902 — 170 N.Y. 579 · caselaw · US
General
Adolph Goldmark, Appellant, v. Magnolia Metal Company, Respondent
170 N.Y. 579·New York Court of Appeals·1902·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
Adolph Goldmark, Appellant, v. Magnolia Metal Company, Respondent.
Goldmark v. Magnolia Metal Go., 44 App. Div. 35, affirmed.
(Argued February 14, 1902;
decided March 4, 1902.)
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered October 31, 1899, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court at a Trial Term.
John Frcmkenheimer and L. A. Gould for appellant.
Alexander 8. Bacon for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
Concur: Parker, Oh. J., Gray, O’Brien, Bartlett and Cullen, JJ. Absent: Haight and Werner, JJ.