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
Conrad Hoffman, Respondent, v. The Fitchburg Railroad Company, Appellant
155 N.Y. 636·New York Court of Appeals·1898·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
Conrad Hoffman, Respondent, v. The Fitchburg Railroad Company, Appellant.
Hoffman v. Mtehhurg B. B. Go., 84 Hun, 144, affirmed.
(Argued January 19, 1898;
decided February 4, 1898.)
Appeal from a judgment of the late General Term of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered February 26, 1895, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict, and also affirmed an order denying a motion for a new trial.
T. F. Hamilton for appellant.
R. A. Pa/rmenter for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
All concur, except Parker, Ch. J., absent.