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.
Mary Cook, Administratrix, etc., Respondent, v. The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Appellant, 1875 — 60 N.Y. 639 · caselaw · US
General
Mary Cook, Administratrix, etc., Respondent, v. The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Appellant
60 N.Y. 639·New York Court of Appeals·1875·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 Cook, Administratrix, etc., Respondent, v. The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Appellant.
(Argued March. 23, 1875;
decided March 30, 1875.)
This was an appeal from an order of General Term affirming a Special Term order vacating and setting aside a stipulation, order and judgment of discontinuance, entéred in this action.
A. P. Laming for the appellant.
John C. Strong for the respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to dismiss appeal. No. opinion.
All concur.
Appeal dismissed.