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
Henry M. Taber et al., Appellants, v. The Manhattan Railway Company et al., Respondents
148 N.Y. 743·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
Henry M. Taber et al., Appellants, v. The Manhattan Railway Company et al., Respondents.
Reported below, 14 Misc. Rep. 189.
(Argued January 20, 1896;
decided January 31, 1896.)
Appeal from order of the General Term of the Superior Court of the city of New York made October 26,. 1895, which reversed an order of Special Term adjudging the defendants guilty of contempt.
.John E. Parsons for appellants.
Julien T. Dames for respondents.
[MAJORITY]
Order affirmed, with costs ; no opinion.
All concur.