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.
Catharine King, Respondent, v. Second Avenue Railroad Company, Appellant, 1896 — 148 N.Y. 739 · caselaw · US
General
Catharine King, Respondent, v. Second Avenue Railroad Company, Appellant
148 N.Y. 739·New York Court of Appeals·1896·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
Catharine King, Respondent, v. Second Avenue Railroad Company, Appellant.
Reported below, 75 Hun, 17.
(Argued January 13, 1896;
decided January 28, 1896.)
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered upon an order made January 17, 1894, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict, and also affirmed an order denying a motion to set aside the verdict.
John M. Scribner for appellant.
George H. Hart for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
All concur.