Woodworth v. . Rice Brothers Company
135 N.E. 925, 233 N.Y. 577, 1922 N.Y. LEXIS 992
Opinion
Judgment affirmed,, with costs; no opinión.
Concur: His cock, Ch. J., Hogan, Cardozo, Pound,' McLaughlin, Crane and Andrews, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Woodworth v. . Rice Brothers Company, 135 N.E. 925, 233 N.Y. 577, 1922 N.Y. LEXIS 992 (N.Y. 1922).
135 N.E. 925 (Woodworth v. . Rice Brothers Company) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Holdridge v. Heyer-Schulte Corp. of Santa Barbara
440 F. Supp. 1088 (N.D. New York, 1977)
Mittasch v. Seal Lock Burial Vault, Inc.
42 A.D.2d 573 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1973)
Cecala v. Title Guarantee Co.
45 Misc. 2d 986 (New York Supreme Court, 1965)
Citizens Utilities Co. v. American Locomotive Co.
184 N.E.2d 171 (New York Court of Appeals, 1962)
Gile v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
281 A.D. 95 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1952)
United States v. Curtiss Aeroplane Co.
50 F. Supp. 477 (S.D. New York, 1943)