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.
Patrick Skelly, Appellant, v. The Metropolitan Elevated Railway Company et al., Respondents, 1899 — 158 N.Y. 677 · caselaw · US
General
Patrick Skelly, Appellant, v. The Metropolitan Elevated Railway Company et al., Respondents
158 N.Y. 677·New York Court of Appeals·1899·NY
All. concur, except Martin and Vann, JJ., dissenting.
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
Patrick Skelly, Appellant, v. The Metropolitan Elevated Railway Company et al., Respondents.
(Argued January 18, 1899;
decided February 3, 1899.)
Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered February 12, 1896, reversing a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the late Superior Court of the city of New York on trial at Special Term, and. granting a new trial.
Skelly v. Metropolitan Elevated R. Co., 1 App. Div. 51, affirmed.
_Eugene D. Hawkins and Edward W. S. Johnston for appellant.
Sidney Smith, Julien T. Davies and Charles A. Gardiner for respondents.
[MAJORITY]
Order affirmed and judgment absolute ordered for defendants on the stipulation, with costs, on opinion below.
All. concur, except Martin and Vann, JJ., dissenting.