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.
John Messenger, Respondent, v. The Manhattan Railway Company et al., Appellants, 1891 — 129 N.Y. 648 · caselaw · US
General
John Messenger, Respondent, v. The Manhattan Railway Company et al., Appellants
129 N.Y. 648·New York Court of Appeals·1891·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
John Messenger, Respondent, v. The Manhattan Railway Company et al., Appellants.
(Argued October 7, 1891;
decided December 22, 1891.)
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Superior Court of the city of New York, entered upon an order made February 13, 1891, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term.
Samuel Blythe Rogers for appellants.
Lewis L. Delafield for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to reverse and order new trial on authority of Roberts v. N. Y. E. R. R. Co. (128 N. Y. 455); no opinion.
All concur.
Judgment reversed.