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.
In the Matter of the Application of The City of New York, Relative to Acquiring Title to Certain Wharfage Rights in the East River. Edith C. Iselin et al., Appellants and Respondents; New York and Baltimore Transportation Line, Appellant; The City of New York, Respondent, 1908 — 192 N.Y. 539 · caselaw · US
Corporations
In the Matter of the Application of The City of New York, Relative to Acquiring Title to Certain Wharfage Rights in the East River. Edith C. Iselin et al., Appellants and Respondents; New York and Baltimore Transportation Line, Appellant; The City of New York, Respondent
192 N.Y. 539·New York Court of Appeals·1908·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
In the Matter of the Application of The City of New York, Relative to Acquiring Title to Certain Wharfage Rights in the East River. Edith C. Iselin et al., Appellants and Respondents; New York and Baltimore Transportation Line, Appellant; The City of New York, Respondent.
Matter of City of New York (Old Pier 11), 124 App. Div. 465. affirmed.
(Argued April 1, 1908;
decided April 21, 1908.)
Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered February 28, 1908, which affirmed an order of Special Term confirming the report of commissioners of estimate and assessment in the above-entitled proceeding.
Frederick W. Whitridge and William H. Farris for Edith C. Iselin et al., appellants and respondents.
Michael J. Mulqueen for New York and Baltimore Transportation Line, appellant.
Francis K. Pendleton, Corporation Counsel (Theodore Connoly, Charles D. Olendorf and Alex. L. Strouse of counsel), for the City of New York, respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Haight, Vann, Werner, Hiscock and Chase, JJ.