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 Welde, Respondent, v. The New York and Harlem Railroad Company et al., Appellants, Impleaded with Another, 1900 — 164 N.Y. 569 · caselaw · US
General
Charles Welde, Respondent, v. The New York and Harlem Railroad Company et al., Appellants, Impleaded with Another
164 N.Y. 569·New York Court of Appeals·1900·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 Welde, Respondent, v. The New York and Harlem Railroad Company et al., Appellants, Impleaded with Another.
Reported below, 53 App. Div. 637.
(Argued October 1, 1900;
decided October 9, 1900.)
Motion to prefer an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered July 26, 1900, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term.
The motion was made upon the grounds that there are many cases pending against the defendants in which similar questions are involved, and that an early decision of this appeal would prevent much litigation and promote the ends of justice.
Thomas P. Wishes for motion.
No one opposed.
[MAJORITY]
Motion denied, without costs.