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.
Cochran Cotton Seed Oil Company, Respondent, v. Theodore Haebler et al., Appellants, 1894 — 142 N.Y. 664 · caselaw · US
General
Cochran Cotton Seed Oil Company, Respondent, v. Theodore Haebler et al., Appellants
142 N.Y. 664·New York Court of Appeals·1894·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
Cochran Cotton Seed Oil Company, Respondent, v. Theodore Haebler et al., Appellants.
(Argued April 18, 1894;
decided. May 4, 1894.)
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Court of Common Pleas in and for the city and county of New York, entered upon an order made January 3, 1893, which affirmed a judgment of the General Term of the City Court of New York, entered upon an order made October 24,1892, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict directed by the court.
Marshall P. Stafford for appellants.
Robert B. Honeyman for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to affirm; no opinion.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.