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 Harrigan, Appellant, v. The City of Brooklyn, Respondent, 1894 — 143 N.Y. 661 · caselaw · US
General
William Harrigan, Appellant, v. The City of Brooklyn, Respondent
143 N.Y. 661·New York Court of Appeals·1894·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 Harrigan, Appellant, v. The City of Brooklyn, Respondent.
(Argued June 20, 1894;
decided October 9, 1894.)
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered upon an order made February 13, 1893, which affirmed a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon an order dismissing the complaint on trial at Circuit.
James O. Ohurch for appellant.
Henry TTonge for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to affirm; no opinion.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.