Opinion · Nylaw New York

COLONIAL DAMES OF AM. v. COLONIAL DAMES, ST. OF N.Y., 173 N.Y. 586 (1902)

COLONIAL DAMES OF Am., Appellant, v. COLONIAL DAMES OF THESTATE OF N.Y., Respondent.THE COLONIAL DAMES OF Am., Appellant, v. THE Nat’l Soc’y OF THECOLONIAL DAMES OF Am. et al., Respondents., 173 N.Y. 586 (Court of Appeals of the State of New York. 1902)

Type: Opinion
Court: New York
Jurisdiction: New York
Date: 1902-12-18
Topic: general

COLONIAL DAMES OF AM. v. COLONIAL DAMES, ST. OF N.Y., 173 N.Y. 586 (1902) THE COLONIAL DAMES OF AMERICA, Appellant, v. THE COLONIAL DAMES OF THESTATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent.THE COLONIAL DAMES OF AMERICA, Appellant, v. THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF THECOLONIAL DAMES OF AMERICA et al., Respondents.Court of Appeals of the State of New York.Argued December 8, 1902 Decided December 18, 1902 Franklin Bartlett for appellant.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed COLONIAL DAMES OF AM. v. COLONIAL DAMES, ST. OF N.Y., 173 N.Y. 586 (1902). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

COLONIAL DAMES OF AM. v. COLONIAL DAMES, ST. OF N.Y.,173 N.Y. 586(1902)

THE COLONIAL DAMES OF AMERICA, Appellant,v. THE COLONIAL DAMES OF THE

STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent.

THE COLONIAL DAMES OF AMERICA, Appellant,v. THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF THE

COLONIAL DAMES OF AMERICA et al., Respondents.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York.

Argued December 8, 1902

Decided December 18, 1902

Franklin Bartlettfor appellant.John M. Bowers, Charles F. BrownandLatham G. Reedfor respondents.

Judgments affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: PARKER, Ch. J., GRAY, O'BRIEN, BARTLETT, HAIGHT, VANN and CULLEN, JJ.