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.
Maggie Dixson, Respondent, v. The Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company, Appellant, 1902 — 170 N.Y. 617 · caselaw · US
General
Maggie Dixson, Respondent, v. The Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company, Appellant
170 N.Y. 617·New York Court of Appeals·1902·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
Maggie Dixson, Respondent, v. The Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company, Appellant.
JDixsonv. Brooklyn Heights B. B. Oo., 68 App. Div. 303, appeal dismissed.
(Submitted March 24, 1902;
decided April 1, 1902.)
Motion to dismiss an appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, made January 17, 1902, which reversed an order of the court at a Trial Term setting aside a verdict in favor of plaintiff and granting a new trial and directed judgment upon the verdict.
The motion was made upon the ground that the Court of App>eals had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.
Samuel S. Whitehouse for motion.
George D. Yeomans opposed.
[MAJORITY]
Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with costs, and ten dollars costs of motion.