Holmes, Booth & Haydens v. Faber

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Holmes, Booth & Haydens v. Faber

52 A.D. 626, 65 N.Y.S. 1136

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 15, 1900

StatusPublished

This text of 52 A.D. 626 (Holmes, Booth & Haydens v. Faber) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Holmes, Booth & Haydens v. Faber, 52 A.D. 626, 65 N.Y.S. 1136 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

In this case the same question is presented as in the case of Leonard v. Faber, decided herewith (Ante, p. 495). It arises in the same way and must be determined upon the same considerations. The* judgment should, therefore, be reversed and. a new trial granted, with costs to appellant * to abide event. Van Brunt, P..,: dissented.. Present—Van Brunt, P. J., Rumsey, Patterson, Ingraham and McLaughlin, JJ.

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

Per Curiam:

In this case the same question is presented as in the case of Leonard v. Faber, decided herewith (Ante, p. 495). It arises in the same way and must be determined upon the same considerations. The* judgment should, therefore, be reversed and. a new trial granted, with costs to appellant * to abide event. Van Brunt, P..,: dissented.. Present—Van Brunt, P. J., Rumsey, Patterson, Ingraham and McLaughlin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 A.D. 626, 65 N.Y.S. 1136, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holmes-booth-haydens-v-faber-nyappdiv-1900.