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.
Martha Winship, as Administratrix of Lovell Winship, Deceased, Respondent, v. Buffalo, Rochester and Pittsburgh Railway Company, Appellant, 1901 — 165 N.Y. 650 · caselaw · US
General
Martha Winship, as Administratrix of Lovell Winship, Deceased, Respondent, v. Buffalo, Rochester and Pittsburgh Railway Company, Appellant
165 N.Y. 650·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
Martha Winship, as Administratrix of Lovell Winship, Deceased, Respondent, v. Buffalo, Rochester and Pittsburgh Railway Company, Appellant.
Winship v. Buffalo, R. & P. Ry. Co., 25 App. Div. 631, affirmed.
(Submitted January 10, 1901;
decided January 25, 1901.)
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered February 15, 1898, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict, and an order denying a motion for a new trial.
Nathaniel Foote for appellant.
Wallace Thayer for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
Concur: Bartlett, Martin, Vann and Landon, JJ. Dissenting : Parker, Ch. J. Absent: O’Brien, J. Not voting: Haight, J.