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.
Carrie Sutter, as Administratrix of the Estate of George F. Sutter, Deceased, Respondent, v. The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Appellant, 1904 — 180 N.Y. 511 · caselaw · US
General
Carrie Sutter, as Administratrix of the Estate of George F. Sutter, Deceased, Respondent, v. The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Appellant
180 N.Y. 511·New York Court of Appeals·1904·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
Carrie Sutter, as Administratrix of the Estate of George F. Sutter, Deceased, Respondent, v. The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Appellant.
Sutter v. JST. T. O. <6 H. R. R. R. Go., 88 N. Y. 620,' affirmed.
(Argued November 29, 1904;
decided December 13, 1904.)
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered December 2, 1903, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial.
Leroy B. Williams for appellant.
James E. Newell for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Judgment affirmed, with costs ; no opinion.
Concur: O’Brien, Bartlett, Martin and Vann, JJ. Dissenting: Cullen, Ch. J., and Haight, J. Not sitting: Gray, J.