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.
Wrilson S. Tifft, Respondent, v. The City of Buffalo, Appellant, 1892 — 130 N.Y. 695 · caselaw · US
General
Wrilson S. Tifft, Respondent, v. The City of Buffalo, Appellant
130 N.Y. 695·New York Court of Appeals·1892·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
Wrilson S. Tifft, Respondent, v. The City of Buffalo, Appellant.
(Submitted January 21, 1892;
decided February 9, 1892.)
Appeal from order of the General Term of the Superior Court of Buffalo, made November 19, 1889, which reversed a judgment in favor of defendant, entered upon a decision of the court on trial without a jury, and granted a new trial.
W. F. Worthmgton for appellant,
Giles E. Stilvjell for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to affirm and for judgment absolute against defendant on stipulation; no opinion.
All concur.
Order affirmed and judgment accordingly.