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.
Hudson and Manhattan Railroad Company, Respondent, v. Josephine J. S. Wendel, Appellant, Impleaded with Others, 1906 — 186 N.Y. 535 · caselaw · US
General
Hudson and Manhattan Railroad Company, Respondent, v. Josephine J. S. Wendel, Appellant, Impleaded with Others
186 N.Y. 535·New York Court of Appeals·1906·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
Hudson and Manhattan Railroad Company, Respondent, v. Josephine J. S. Wendel, Appellant, Impleaded with Others.
Hudson & Manhattan R. R. Co. v. Wendel, 112 App. Div. 822, affirmed.
(Argued October 2, 1906;
decided October 16, 1906.)
Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered April 17, 1906, which affirmed an order of Special Term denying a motion to dismiss a proceeding to acquire certain property by condemnation, and referred the issues raised by the petition and the answers thereto.
The following questions were certified: “ 1. Can the petitioner, respondent, upon the facts alleged in the petition herein, maintain a proceeding to acquire by condemnation the property of the appellant, Josephine J. S. Wendel, in said petition described ?
“ 2. Should the preliminary motion made by the defendant Josephine J. S. Wendel to dismiss this proceeding as to her, which said motion is recited in- the order of the Special Term of the Supreme Court dated February 6, 1906, and entered in the office of. the clerk of the county of New York on the 7th day of February, 1906, have been granted 1 ”
Lewis L. Delafield for appellant.
F. B. Jennings for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Order affirmed, with costs; first question certified answered in the affirmative; second question certified answered in the negative; no opinion.
Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Edward T. Bartlett, Haight, Vann, Werner, Willard Bartlett and Chase, JJ.