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
Henry H. Skinner et al., as Administrators, etc., Respondents, v. The Prospect Park and Coney Island Railroad Company, Appellant; Same v. Same
140 N.Y. 621·New York Court of Appeals·1893·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
Henry H. Skinner et al., as Administrators, etc., Respondents, v. The Prospect Park and Coney Island Railroad Company, Appellant. Same v. Same.
(Argued October 20, 1893;
decided November 28, 1893.
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, in both of the above-entitled actions, entered upon orders made February 13,1892, which affirmed judgments in favor of plaintiff entered upon verdicts and affirmed orders denying motions for a new trial.
Samuel D. Morris for appellant.
Charles J. Patterson for respondents.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to affirm; no opinion.
All concur.
Judgments affirmed.