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.
Robert L. Cutting et al., Appellants, v. The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company et al., Respondents, 1904 — 177 N.Y. 552 · caselaw · US
General
Robert L. Cutting et al., Appellants, v. The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company et al., Respondents
177 N.Y. 552·New York Court of Appeals·1904·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
Robert L. Cutting et al., Appellants, v. The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company et al., Respondents.
Gutting y. Baltimore <6 Ohio B. B. Go., 65 App. Div. 414, appeA dismissed.
(Argued December 17, 1903;
decided January 5, 1904.)
Appeal from a judgment entered June 2, 1902, in favor of defendants upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, which affirmed an interlocutory judgment of Special Term directing that the complaint be dismissed unless the plaintiffs pay a certain sum of money into court.
Edward L. Andrews for appellants.
Garl A. de Gersdorff, William, B. Guthrie and R. R. Rogers for respondents.
[MAJORITY]
Appeal dismissed, with costs; no opinion.
Concur: Parker, Ch. J., Bartlett, Martin, Yann and Werner, JJ. Not sitting: Gray, J. Absent: Haight, J,