General
Anna Siegel, Plaintiff in Error, v. The New York and Harlem Railroad Company et al.; Hedewig Kriete, Plaintiff in Error, v. The New York and Harlem Railroad Company et al.; David W. O'Neil et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. The New York and Harlem Railroad Company et al; and Franziska Schalz, Plaintiff in Error, v. The New York and Harlem Railroad Company et al.
200 U.S. 615·Supreme Court of the United States·1906
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
No. 407.
No. 453.
No. 454.
No. 493.
Anna Siegel, Plaintiff in Error, v. The New York and Harlem Railroad Company et al.; Hedewig Kriete, Plaintiff in Error, v. The New York and Harlem Railroad Company et al.; David W. O’Neil et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. The New York and Harlem Railroad Company et al; and Franziska Schalz, Plaintiff in Error, v. The New York and Harlem Railroad Company et al.
Argued January 15 and 16, 1906.
Decided January 19, 1906.
Mr. L. M. Berkeley and Mr. Charles A. Hess for. •plaintiffs in error. Mr. Edward Winslow Paige and Mr. Ira A. Place for defendants in error. '
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
In error to the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Per Curiam.
Judgments reversed with costs, and cases remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with the opinions of this court in Muhlker v. New York and Harlem Railroad Company, 197 U. S. 544; Birrell v. New York and Harlem Railroad Company, 198 U. S. 390; Kierns v. New York and Harlem Railroad Company, 198 U. S. 390.