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.
Diedrich Werfelman et al., Respondents, v. The Manhattan Railway Company et al., Appellants, 1892 — 134 N.Y. 613 · caselaw · US
General
Diedrich Werfelman et al., Respondents, v. The Manhattan Railway Company et al., Appellants
134 N.Y. 613·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
Diedrich Werfelman et al., Respondents, v. The Manhattan Railway Company et al., Appellants.
(Argued June 2, 1892;
decided June 17, 1892.)
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Court of Common Pleas for the city and county of Few York, entered upon an order made July 18, 1890, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term.
Samuel Blythe Rogers for appellants.
Henry G. Atwater for respondents.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to reverse and grant new trial on authority of Roberts v. N. Y. E. R. R. Co. (128 N. Y. 455), and Malcom v. Manhattan R. Co. (133 id. 664).
All concur.
Judgment reversed.