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.
Maky A. Peckham et al., Respondents, v. The Dutchess County Railroad Company, Appellant, 1893 — 139 N.Y. 642 · caselaw · US
General
Maky A. Peckham et al., Respondents, v. The Dutchess County Railroad Company, Appellant
139 N.Y. 642·New York Court of Appeals·1893·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
Maky A. Peckham et al., Respondents, v. The Dutchess County Railroad Company, Appellant.
(Argued October 9, 1893 ;
decided October 24, 1893.)
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered upon an order made July 28, 1892, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiffs entered upon a decision of the court-on trial at Special Term.
Milton A. Fowler for appellant.
C. B. Herrick for respondents.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to affirm on opinion below.
All concur except Andbews, Ch. J., Eabl and Gbay, JJ., dissenting.
Judgment affirmed.