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.
William H. Crandall, Appellant, v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Company, Respondent, 1896 — 151 N.Y. 642 · caselaw · US
General
William H. Crandall, Appellant, v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Company, Respondent
151 N.Y. 642·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
William H. Crandall, Appellant, v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Company, Respondent.
Grandall y. Léhigh Valley R. R. Go., 72 Hun, 431, affirmed.
(Argued December 7, 1896;
decided December 22, 1896.)
Appeal from a judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the fifth judicial department, entered January 11, 1894, which denied a motion for a new trial made upon exceptions ordered to be heard in the first instance at General Term and ordered judgment in favor of defendant upon a decision of the court dismissing the complaint upon trial at Circuit.
John D. Teller for appellant.
John M. Brainard for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Judgment affirmed, with costs, on opinion below.
All concur, except Haight, J., not sitting, and Yann, J., not voting.