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.
Charles F. Mattlage, Respondent, v. The New York Elevated Railroad Company et al., Appellants, 1898 — 157 N.Y. 708 · caselaw · US
General
Charles F. Mattlage, Respondent, v. The New York Elevated Railroad Company et al., Appellants
157 N.Y. 708·New York Court of Appeals·1898·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
Charles F. Mattlage, Respondent, v. The New York Elevated Railroad Company et al., Appellants.
Mattlage v. New York Elevated B. B. Oo., 14 Misc. Rep. 291, affirmed.
(Submitted November 28, 1898;
decided December 16, 1898.)
Appeal from an order of the General Term of the late Court of Common Pleas for the city and county of New York, entered November 7, 1895, reversing a judgment for nominal damages only, entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term, and granting a new trial.
Julien T. Davies, J. C. Thomson and Charles A. Oar-dimer for appellants.
Charles D. Ridgway for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Order affirmed and judgment absolute ordered against the defendants on the stipulation, with costs, on opinion below.
All concur, except Gray, J., absent.