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.
In the Matter of the Application of The City of New York, Appellant, Relative to Acquiring Title to Lands Required for the Opening of West One Hundred and Sixty-second Street. J. Romaine Brown et al., as Executors of Loyal L. Smith, Deceased, et al., Respondents, 1908 — 192 N.Y. 570 · caselaw · US
Corporations
In the Matter of the Application of The City of New York, Appellant, Relative to Acquiring Title to Lands Required for the Opening of West One Hundred and Sixty-second Street. J. Romaine Brown et al., as Executors of Loyal L. Smith, Deceased, et al., Respondents
192 N.Y. 570·New York Court of Appeals·1908·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
In the Matter of the Application of The City of New York, Appellant, Relative to Acquiring Title to Lands Required for the Opening of West One Hundred and Sixty-second Street. J. Romaine Brown et al., as Executors of Loyal L. Smith, Deceased, et al., Respondents.
Matter of City of New York (West 162d St.), 125 App. Div. 485, affirmed.
(Argued May 19, 1908;
decided June 2, 1908.)
Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered April 10, 1908, which affirmed an order of Special Term confirming a report of commissioners of estimate and assessment in the above-entitled proceeding.
Francis K. Pendleton, Corporation Counsel (John P. Dunn, Theodore Connoly and Thomas C. Blake, of counsel), for appellant.
Thomas F. Conway, Benjamin Trapnell, Joseph A. Flannery and Harry G. Smith for respondents.
[MAJORITY]
Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Vann, Werner, Hiscock and Chase, JJ. Dissenting: Gray and Willard Bartlett, JJ.