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 Van Tassel, Respondent, v. The New York, Lake Erie and Western Railroad Company, Appellant, 1894 — 142 N.Y. 634 · caselaw · US
Civil Procedure · MBE-tested
John Van Tassel, Respondent, v. The New York, Lake Erie and Western Railroad Company, Appellant
142 N.Y. 634·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
John Van Tassel, Respondent, v. The New York, Lake Erie and Western Railroad Company, Appellant.
(Argued March 14, 1894;
decided April 10, 1894.)
Appeal from order of the General Term of the Court of Common Pleas for the city and county of New York, made November 7, 1892, which affirmed an order of Special Term denying a motion by defendant for a new trial.
Frederic B. Jennings for appellant.
Artemas B. Smith for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to dismiss appeal; no opinion.
All concur.
Appeal dismissed.