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.
Lillie Burleigh Reid, as Executrix, etc., Respondent, v. The New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company, Appellant, 1892 — 136 N.Y. 638 · caselaw · US
General
Lillie Burleigh Reid, as Executrix, etc., Respondent, v. The New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company, Appellant
136 N.Y. 638·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
Lillie Burleigh Reid, as Executrix, etc., Respondent, v. The New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company, Appellant.
(Argued October 25, 1892;
decided November 29, 1892.)
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered upon an order made February 18,1892, which overruled exceptions taken by defendant and ordered judgment for plaintiff on a verdict.
Henry W. Taft for appellant.
Flamen B. Oamdler and Fgerton L. Wimthrop, Jr., for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to affirm; no opinion.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.