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.
William Morthorst, by Guardian, etc., Respondent, v. The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Appellant, 1876 — 64 N.Y. 625 · caselaw · US
General
William Morthorst, by Guardian, etc., Respondent, v. The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Appellant
64 N.Y. 625·New York Court of Appeals·1876·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
William Morthorst, by Guardian, etc., Respondent, v. The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Appellant.
(Argued January 20, 1876;
decided February 1, 1876.)
A. P. Laning for the appellant
John H. Martindale for the respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to affirm. No opinion.
All concur; Allen, J., not sitting
Judgment affirmed.