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.
Peter S. Schutt, Respondent, v. The Manhattan Railway Company et al., Appellants, 1898 — 155 N.Y. 686 · caselaw · US
General
Peter S. Schutt, Respondent, v. The Manhattan Railway Company et al., Appellants
155 N.Y. 686·New York Court of Appeals·1898·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
Peter S. Schutt, Respondent, v. The Manhattan Railway Company et al., Appellants.
Schutt v. Manhattan Bailway Go., 13 Mise. Rep.-772, affirmed.
(Argued March 18, 1898;
decided April 19, 1898.)
Appeal from a judgment of the General Term of the late Superior Court of the city of New York, entered August 22, 1895, upon an order affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at an Equity Term.
Arthur 0. Townsend and Judien T. Ernies for appellants.
Edward A. Hibbard for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Judgment and order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
All concur, except Parker, Ch. J., dissenting.