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.
The Manhattan Railway Company, Appellant, v. John M. Cornell, Respondent, 1891 — 130 N.Y. 637 · caselaw · US
General
The Manhattan Railway Company, Appellant, v. John M. Cornell, Respondent
130 N.Y. 637·New York Court of Appeals·1891·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
The Manhattan Railway Company, Appellant, v. John M. Cornell, Respondent.
(Argued October 12, 1891;
decided October 27, 1891.)
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, in favor of defendant, entered upon an order made November Y, 1889, which dis. missed plaintiff’s claim upon the merits on a case submitted under, sections 12Y9-1281 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Samuel H. Benton for appellant.
Tallmadge W. Foster for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to affirm; no opinion.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.