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 Niagara Falls Hydraulic Power and Manufacturing Company, Appellant, for the Change of the Proposed Route of The Niagara Falls and Lewiston Railroad Company, Respondent, 1894 — 143 N.Y. 669 · caselaw · US
General
In the Matter of the Application of The Niagara Falls Hydraulic Power and Manufacturing Company, Appellant, for the Change of the Proposed Route of The Niagara Falls and Lewiston Railroad Company, Respondent
143 N.Y. 669·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
In the Matter of the Application of The Niagara Falls Hydraulic Power and Manufacturing Company, Appellant, for the Change of the Proposed Route of The Niagara Falls and Lewiston Railroad Company, Respondent.
(Argued October 12, 1894;
decided October 30, 1894.)
Appeal from order of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the fifth judicial department, entered upon an order made March 28,1893, which affirmed a determination of commissioners appointed in the above proceeding.
John L. Romer for appellant.
Herbert P. Rissell for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to affirm; no opinion.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.