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.
David N. Smith, Appellant, v. United Traction and Electric Company, Respondent, 1901 — 168 N.Y. 597 · caselaw · US
General
David N. Smith, Appellant, v. United Traction and Electric Company, Respondent
168 N.Y. 597·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
David N. Smith, Appellant, v. United Traction and Electric Company, Respondent.
Smith v. United Traction & Electric Co., 49 App. Div. 641, affirmed.
(Argued June 7, 1901;
decided October 1, 1901.)
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered March 19, 1900, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the. court at a Trial Term.
Albert Stickney and George G. Molt for appellant.
John M. Parsons for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Judgment affirmed, with costs, on opinion below.
Concur: Parker, Ch. J., Bartlett, Haight, Vann, Landon, Cullen and Werner, JJ.