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.
Christine Ott, as Administratrix, etc., Respondent, v. The City of Buffalo, Appellant, 1892 — 131 N.Y. 594 · caselaw · US
General
Christine Ott, as Administratrix, etc., Respondent, v. The City of Buffalo, Appellant
131 N.Y. 594·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
Christine Ott, as Administratrix, etc., Respondent, v. The City of Buffalo, Appellant.
(Argued, January 28, 1892;
decided February 12, 1892.)
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court- in the fifth judicial department, entered upon an order made- June 17, 1891, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict, and affirmed an order denying a motion for a new trial.
W. F. Mackey for appellant.
C. S. Crosser for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Agree-to affirm; no opinion.
All concur, except Maynard, J., taking no part.
Judgment affirmed.