Opinion · Nylaw New York

EISENBACH v. GIMBEL BROS., INC., FELIN CO., INC., 280 N.Y. 690 (1939)

ROBERT L. EISENBACH, Respondent, v. GIMBEL BROS., INC., Appellant andRespondent, & CHAS. WISSMAN CO., INC., Appellant & Respondent, & JOHNJ. FELIN CO., Appellant., 21 N.E.2d 199 (Court of Appeals of the State of New York. 1939)

Type: Opinion
Court: Nylaw New York
Jurisdiction: Nylaw
Date: 1939-04-11
Topic: general

EISENBACH v. GIMBEL BROS., INC., FELIN CO., INC., 280 N.Y. 690 (1939) 21 N.E.2d 199 ROBERT L. EISENBACH, Respondent, v. GIMBEL BROS., INC., Appellant andRespondent, and CHAS. WISSMAN CO., INC., Appellant and Respondent, and JOHNJ.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed EISENBACH v. GIMBEL BROS., INC., FELIN CO., INC., 280 N.Y. 690 (1939). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

EISENBACHv.GIMBEL BROS., INC., FELIN CO., INC.,280 N.Y. 690(1939)

21 N.E.2d 199

ROBERT L. EISENBACH, Respondent,v.GIMBEL BROS., INC., Appellant and

Respondent, and CHAS. WISSMAN CO., INC., Appellant and Respondent, and JOHN

J. FELIN CO., Appellant.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York.

Submitted April 3, 1939

Decided April 11, 1939

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

Eugene L. Bondyfor motion.Thomas F. Keaneopposed.

Motion denied, with leave to renew on argument of appeal.Page 691