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.
Clarence T. Birkett, Respondent, v. The Postal Telegraph-Cable Company, Appellant, 1906 — 186 N.Y. 591 · caselaw · US
General
Clarence T. Birkett, Respondent, v. The Postal Telegraph-Cable Company, Appellant
186 N.Y. 591·New York Court of Appeals·1906·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
Clarence T. Birkett, Respondent, v. The Postal Telegraph-Cable Company, Appellant.
Birkett v. Postal Telegraph-Cable Co., 107 App. Div. 115, affirmed.
(Argued November 16, 1906;
decided December 4, 1906.)
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered July 28,1905, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon the report of a referee in an action to recover the amount of alleged overcharges collected from the plaintiff by an agent of defendant and applied by said agent to his own use.
J. N. Hammond for appellant.
Calvin J. Huson for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Judgment affirmed, with costs ; no opinion.
Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Haight, Vann, Werner and Willard Bartlett, JJ. Not sitting: Hiscook, J.