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.
The New York Milk Products Company, Respondent, v. Hiram A. Damon et al., Appellants, 1902 — 172 N.Y. 661 · caselaw · US
General
The New York Milk Products Company, Respondent, v. Hiram A. Damon et al., Appellants
172 N.Y. 661·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
The New York Milk Products Company, Respondent, v. Hiram A. Damon et al., Appellants.
N. Y. Milk Products Co. v. Damon, 57 App. Div. 261, affirmed.
(Submitted November 20, 1902;
decided December 9, 1902.)
Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered April 26, 1901, reversing a judgment in favor of defendants entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court on trial at Special Term and granting a new trial.
Fra/nk W. Siemens for appellants.
James O. Sheldon and B. F. Congdon for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Order affirmed and judgment absolute ordered for plaintiff on the stipulation, with costs, on opinion below.
Concur: Parker, Oh. J., Gray, Bartlett, Haight, Martin, Yann and Werner, JJ.