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
Ignatz Dlabola, Respondent, v. The Manhattan Railway Company, Appellant
134 N.Y. 585·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
Ignatz Dlabola, Respondent, v. The Manhattan Railway Company, Appellant.
(Argued April 25, 1892;
decided May 31, 1892.)
Appeal from judgment oí the General Term of the Court of Common Pleas for the city and county of Rew York, entered upon an order made February 3,1890, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered upon a decision of the court on trial without a jury, and also affirmed an order denying a motion for a new trial.
Samuel BT/ythe Rogers for appellant.
Alfred Steepler for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to affirm • no opinion.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.