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.
General
Charles Lippe, Respondent, v. The Metropolitan Elevated Railway Company et al., Appellants
129 N.Y. 630·New York Court of Appeals·1891·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 Lippe, Respondent, v. The Metropolitan Elevated Railway Company et al., Appellants.
(Argued October 28, 1891;
decided December 1, 1891.)
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Superior Court of the city of New York, entered upon an order made the first Monday of February, 1891, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon the decision of the court at Special Term.
Brainard Tolles for appellants.
Charles Gibson Bennett for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Agree" to affirm on authority of Kernochan v. N. Y. E. R. R. Co. (128 N. Y. 559); no opinion.
All concur, except Eabl, J., not voting.
Judgment affirmed.