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.
Jane Wells, Respondent, v. The City of Brooklyn, Appellant, 1899 — 158 N.Y. 699 · caselaw · US
General
Jane Wells, Respondent, v. The City of Brooklyn, Appellant
158 N.Y. 699·New York Court of Appeals·1899·NY
All concur, except O’Brien, J., not voting.
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
Jane Wells, Respondent, v. The City of Brooklyn, Appellant.
(Argued February 2, 1899;
decided February 28, 1899.)
Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered November 5, 1896, reversing a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a verdict, and an order denying a motion for a new trial and granting a new trial.
Wells v. City of Brooklyn, 9 App. Div. 61, appeal dismissed.
WilUmn J. Oan'r for appellant.
James D. Bell for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Appeal dismissed, with costs, on the authority of Henavie v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co. (154 N. Y. 278); no opinion.
All concur, except O’Brien, J., not voting.