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
Solomon Hexter, Respondent, v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, Appellant
159 N.Y. 542·New York Court of Appeals·1899·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
Solomon Hexter, Respondent, v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, Appellant.
Heater v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 38 App. Div. 619, appeal dismissed.
(Submitted May 8, 1899;
decided May 12, 1899.)
Motion to dismiss an appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered February 10, 1899, reversing an order of the trial court setting aside a verdict for plaintiff and granting a new trial, and from the judgment entered upon the verdict.
The motion was made upon the ground that the Court of Appeals has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.
Samuel H. Randall for motion.
Harry Galbraith Ward opposed.
[MAJORITY]
Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with costs.