Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Hattie Woodworth, as Administratrix of George H. Woodworth, Deceased, Respondent, v. The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Appellant, 1902 — 170 N.Y. 589 · caselaw · US
General
Hattie Woodworth, as Administratrix of George H. Woodworth, Deceased, Respondent, v. The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Appellant
170 N.Y. 589·New York Court of Appeals·1902·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Hattie Woodworth, as Administratrix of George H. Woodworth, Deceased, Respondent, v. The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Appellant.
Woodworth v. N. T. O. & H. B. B. B. Co., 55 App. Div. 23, affirmed.
(Argued February 26,-1902;
decided March 25, 1902.)
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered January 8, 1901, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a now trial.
Robert A. Kutsehboch and Charles C. Paulding for appellant.
Clinton F. Ferris for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
Concur : Babtlett, Mabtin, Vann, Cullen and Webneb, JJ. Dissenting: Parker, Ch. J. Not voting: Haight, J.