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
Catherine McGovern as Administratrix, etc., Respondent, v. The Central Vermont Railroad Company, Appellant
131 N.Y. 581·New York Court of Appeals·1892·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
Catherine McGovern as Administratrix, etc., Respondent, v. The Central Vermont Railroad Company, Appellant.
(Argued January 26, 1892;
decided February 9, 1892.)
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered upon an order made May 21, 1891, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and affirmed an order denying a motion for a new trial.
Louis Hasbrouck for appellant.
C. A. Kellogg for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to affirm; no opinion.
All concur, except Peckham, J., dissenting.
Judgment affirmed.