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.
Morris Coleman, as Administrator, etc., Respondent, v. The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Appellant, 1892 — 131 N.Y. 617 · caselaw · US
General
Morris Coleman, as Administrator, etc., Respondent, v. The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Appellant
131 N.Y. 617·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
Morris Coleman, as Administrator, etc., Respondent, v. The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Appellant.
(Argued February 5, 1892;
decided March 1, 1892.)
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court, in the fourth judicial department, entered upon an order made September 8, 1891, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff and affirmed an order denying a motion for a new trial.
C. D. Prescott for appellant.
E. D. Matthews for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to affirm; no opinion.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.