General
Mary E. McKenna, as Administratrix, etc., Appellant, v. The East River Ferry Company, Respondent
113 N.Y. 636·New York Court of Appeals·1889·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
Mary E. McKenna, as Administratrix, etc., Appellant, v. The East River Ferry Company, Respondent.
(Argued March 13, 1889;
decided April 16, 1889.)
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered upon an order made May 9,. 1887, which affirmed a judgment, entered upon •an order dismissing the complaint, and affirmed an order denying a motion for a new trial.
Eugene Burlingame for appellant.
Nathan Bijur for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to affirm; no opinion.
All concur, except Ruger, Ch. J., Andrews and Danforth,. JJ., dissenting.
Judgment affirmed.