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.
AMERICAN BRAKE SHOE & FOUNDRY COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. NEW YORK RAILWAYS COMPANY et al., Defendants, and City of New York, Appellant, 1926 — 15 F.2d 1008 · caselaw · US
General
AMERICAN BRAKE SHOE & FOUNDRY COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. NEW YORK RAILWAYS COMPANY et al., Defendants, and City of New York, Appellant
15 F.2d 1008·United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·1926
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
AMERICAN BRAKE SHOE & FOUNDRY COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. NEW YORK RAILWAYS COMPANY et al., Defendants, and City of New York, Appellant.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
November 1, 1926.)
No. 44.
Appeal from the District Court of the United. States for the Southern District of New York.
Appeal from final decree entered in the District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Cotton & Franklin, of New York City (J. A. Fowler, Jr., of New York City, of counsel), for appellee.
Before HOUGH, MANTON, and MACK, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
This cause having been reached in its regular call on the calendar, appellant refused to proceed. We have examined the record, and have not perceived any obvious error therein.
The appeal is dismissed, with costs.