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
Mary Enders, as Administratrix, etc., Respondent, v. The Lake Shore and Michigan Southern Railway Company, Appellant
117 N.Y. 640·New York Court of Appeals·1889·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
Mary Enders, as Administratrix, etc., Respondent, v. The Lake Shore and Michigan Southern Railway Company, Appellant.
(Argued October 23, 1889;
decided November 26, 1889
Appeal from judgment of General Term of the Superior Court of the city of Buffalo, entered upon an order made November 30, 1888, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict, and affirmed an order denying a motion for a new trial.
James Fraser Gluck for appellant.
Tracy C. Becker for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to affirm; no opinion.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.