Juhel v. Rhinelander
2 Johns. Cas. 120
Opinion
dissenting) said, that they considered the decision, in the case of Seton, Maitland & Co. v. Low, as conclusive, and that the plaintiff' was entitled to judgment accordingly. r
Judgment for the plaintiff.(
(b) Affirmed in the court of errors, in 1802, infra, 487.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Juhel v. Rhinelander, 2 Johns. Cas. 120 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1800).
2 Johns. Cas. 120 (Juhel v. Rhinelander) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Atlantic Fruit Co. v. Solari
238 F. 217 (S.D. New York, 1916)