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.
A. B. Farquhar Company, Limited, Respondent, v. Monroe Truesdell, Appellant, 1903 — 176 N.Y. 547 · caselaw · US
General
A. B. Farquhar Company, Limited, Respondent, v. Monroe Truesdell, Appellant
176 N.Y. 547·New York Court of Appeals·1903·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
A. B. Farquhar Company, Limited, Respondent, v. Monroe Truesdell, Appellant.
A. B. EarquJtar Go., Limited, v. Truesdell, 66 App. Div. 616, affirmed.
(Argued June 23, 1903;
decided October 6, 1903.)
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered November 19, 1901, affirming a final judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered upon failure to comply with the terms of an interlocutory judgment entered upon a decision of the court at a Trial Term, without a jury, overruling a demurrer to the complaint.
Nelson Smith and Jesse W. Ol/ney for appellant.
F. 3. Osborn for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
Concur: Parker, Ch. J., O’Brien, Bartlett, Yann and Werner, JJ. Not votingCullen, J. Absent: Martin, J.