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.
Charles Herold, Respondent, v. The Manhattan Railway Company, Appellant, 1890 — 118 N.Y. 686 · caselaw · US
General
Charles Herold, Respondent, v. The Manhattan Railway Company, Appellant
118 N.Y. 686·New York Court of Appeals·1890·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
Charles Herold, Respondent, v. The Manhattan Railway Company, Appellant.
(Argued January 27, 1890;
decided February 25, 1890.)
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Court of Common Pleas for the city and county of New Tork, entered upon an order made January 10,1887, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered upon a verdict.
Henry D. Sedgwick for appellant.
Charles Steckler for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to affirm; no opinion.
All concur.
.Judgment affirmed.