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.
Konstantine Kosters, by Guardian ad Litem, Respondent, v. The Brooklyn, Bath and West End Railroad Company, Appellant, 1896 — 151 N.Y. 630 · caselaw · US
General
Konstantine Kosters, by Guardian ad Litem, Respondent, v. The Brooklyn, Bath and West End Railroad Company, Appellant
151 N.Y. 630·New York Court of Appeals·1896·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
Konstantine Kosters, by Guardian ad Litem, Respondent, v. The Brooklyn, Bath and West End Railroad Company, Appellant.
Hosiers v. Brooklyn, B. & W. E. JR. R. Go., 10 Mise. Rep. 18, affirmed.
(Argued October 29, 1896;
decided December 1, 1896.)
Appeal from a judgment of the General Term of the City Court of Brooklyn entered October 27, 1894, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict, and also affirmed an order denying a motion for a new; trial.
Albert C. Tennant and Matthew Hale for appellant.
George W. Miller for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
All concur.