Butterfield v. Radde

The Superior Court of New York City

Butterfield v. Radde

41 Jones & S. 181

CourtThe Superior Court of New York City

DecidedApril 3, 1876

StatusPublished

This text of 41 Jones & S. 181 (Butterfield v. Radde) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of New York City primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Butterfield v. Radde, 41 Jones & S. 181 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1876).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The chief justice of the court of appeals has made a memorandum, that the judgment in Mallery v. Radde was reversed, upon the ground, that there was not sufficient evidence to establish that the defendant was a stockholder. The defect of evidence, in that case, exists in the two present cases. For that reason, the judgments in these cases should be reversed, with costs to appellant to abide event, and a new trial ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

The chief justice of the court of appeals has made a memorandum, that the judgment in Mallery v. Radde was reversed, upon the ground, that there was not sufficient evidence to establish that the defendant was a stockholder. The defect of evidence, in that case, exists in the two present cases. For that reason, the judgments in these cases should be reversed, with costs to appellant to abide event, and a new trial ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 Jones & S. 181, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/butterfield-v-radde-nysuperctnyc-1876.