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.
Edwin W. Montgomery, Appellant, v. Buffalo Railway Company, Respondent, 1901 — 165 N.Y. 648 · caselaw · US
General
Edwin W. Montgomery, Appellant, v. Buffalo Railway Company, Respondent
165 N.Y. 648·New York Court of Appeals·1901·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
Edwin W. Montgomery, Appellant, v. Buffalo Railway Company, Respondent.
(Argued January 7, 1901;
decided January 22, 1901.)
[MAJORITY]
Motion to amend remittitur granted, and the Supreme Court of the fourth department is requested to return the remittitur to this court in this case. Upon its being returned, the same is ordered to be amended so as to contain a direction for judgment absolute in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff, in pursuance of the latter’s stipulation to that effect, which was on file with the clerk of this court and a part of the record at the hearing of this appeal. (See 165 N. Y. 139.)