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.
Eugene C. Lewis Company, Respondent, v. Metropolitan Realty Company, Appellant, 1907 — 189 N.Y. 534 · caselaw · US
Torts · MBE-tested
Eugene C. Lewis Company, Respondent, v. Metropolitan Realty Company, Appellant
189 N.Y. 534·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
Eugene C. Lewis Company, Respondent, v. Metropolitan Realty Company, Appellant.
Lewis Co. v. Metropolitan Bealty Co., 112 App. Div. 885, affirmed.
(Submitted June 14, 1907;
decided October 1, 1907.)
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered April 26, 1906, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial in an action to recover for injuries to chattels alleged to have been caused through defendant’s negligence.
Charles J. Hardy for appellant.
Willard H. JBaylis for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Judgment affirmed, with costs ; no opinion.
Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Edward T. Bartlett, Haight, Vann, Werner and Hisgook, JJ.