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.
Margaret Agnew, an Infant, by Samuel Agnew, her Guardian Ad Litem, Respondent, v. The Brooklyn City Railroad Company, Appellant, 1889 — 117 N.Y. 651 · caselaw · US
General
Margaret Agnew, an Infant, by Samuel Agnew, her Guardian Ad Litem, Respondent, v. The Brooklyn City Railroad Company, Appellant
117 N.Y. 651·New York Court of Appeals·1889·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
Margaret Agnew, an Infant, by Samuel Agnew, her Guardian Ad Litem, Respondent, v. The Brooklyn City Railroad Company, Appellant.
(Argued November 27, 1889;
decided December 10, 1889.)
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the City Court of Brooklyn, entered upon an order made April 25,1889, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict.
Samuel D. Morris for appellant.
Charles J. Patterson for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to affirm; no opinion.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.