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
Thomas Clark, Sr., Respondent, v. The Central Park, North and East River Railroad Company, Appellant
76 N.Y. 596·New York Court of Appeals·1879·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
Thomas Clark, Sr., Respondent, v. The Central Park, North and East River Railroad Company, Appellant.
(Argued January 20, 1879;
decided January 28, 1879.)
W. Bookstaver for appellant.
William Allan for respondent..
[MAJORITY]
Agree to affirm without .opinion.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.