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
Elvira Vick, as Administratrix, etc., Appellant, v. The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Respondent
104 N.Y. 676·New York Court of Appeals·1887·NY
All concur except Ruger, Ch. J., and Danfobth, J„ not voting. -
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
Elvira Vick, as Administratrix, etc., Appellant, v. The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Respondent.
(Argued January 31, 1887;
decided February 11, 1887.)
Willicmi 8. OMver for appellant.
Edward Harris for Respondent
[MAJORITY]
Agree to affirm; no opinion.
All concur except Ruger, Ch. J., and Danfobth, J„ not voting. -
Judgment affirmed.