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.
Matthew Gaunt Hepworth, Respondent, v. The Union Ferry Company of Brooklyn, Appellant, 1892 — 131 N.Y. 645 · caselaw · US
Torts · MBE-tested
Matthew Gaunt Hepworth, Respondent, v. The Union Ferry Company of Brooklyn, Appellant
131 N.Y. 645·New York Court of Appeals·1892·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
Matthew Gaunt Hepworth, Respondent, v. The Union Ferry Company of Brooklyn, Appellant.
(Argued February 29, 1892;
decided March 15, 1892.)
Appeal from order of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, made the second Monday of September, 1891, which affirmed an order of Special Term reviving and continuing an action of assault and battery against the trustees of the defendant, which had become extinct by reason of the expiration of the time fixed for its corporate existence.
Frederic A. Ward for appellant.
Orrin Gambell for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to dismiss appeal; no opinion.
All concur.
Appeal dismissed.