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 Brickner, Administratrix, etc., Respondent, v. The New York Central Railroad Company, Appellant, 1872 — 49 N.Y. 672 · caselaw · US
Administrative
Mary Brickner, Administratrix, etc., Respondent, v. The New York Central Railroad Company, Appellant
49 N.Y. 672·New York Court of Appeals·1872·NY
All concur, except Allen, J., dissenting, and Rapallo, J., not voting.
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 Brickner, Administratrix, etc., Respondent, v. The New York Central Railroad Company, Appellant.
(Argued December 20, 1871;
decided May 28, 1872.)
This action is similar to and was decided upon the authority of Laming v. N. Y. C. R. R. (ante, p. 521.) The case reported below, 2 Lansing, 506.
Samuel Hcmd for the appellant.
Isaac Lawson for the respondent.
[MAJORITY — Folger, J.,]
Folger, J.,
reads for affirmance.
All concur, except Allen, J., dissenting, and Rapallo, J., not voting.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.