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.
James E. York, Appellant, v. John E. Searles et al., Respondents, 1907 — 189 N.Y. 573 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
James E. York, Appellant, v. John E. Searles et al., Respondents
189 N.Y. 573·New York Court of Appeals·1907·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
James E. York, Appellant, v. John E. Searles et al., Respondents.
York v. Searles, 97 App. Div. 331, affirmed.
(Argued October 16, 1907;
decided November 1, 1907.)
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered October 24, 1904, affirming a judgment in favor of defendants entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court on trial at Special Term in an equitable action to have plaintiff decreed the owner of certain stock under certain contracts and to restrain the defendants from selling the same.
Lucius E. Judson for appellant.
George W. Sclmrman, Richard E. Dwight and Edward J. Patterson for respondents.
[MAJORITY]
" Judgment affirmed, with costs ; no opinion.
Concur: Cullen, Oh. J., Gray, Edward T. Bartlett, Haight, Werner and Hiscook, JJ. Not sitting: Willard Bartlett, J.