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.
Edgar C. Davis, Respondent, v. The Rome, Watertown and Ogdensburg Railroad Company, Appellant; Byron H. Garland, Respondent, v. The Same, Appellant; Elisha Garrison, Respondent, v. The Same, Appellant, 1890 — 119 N.Y. 644 · caselaw · US
General
Edgar C. Davis, Respondent, v. The Rome, Watertown and Ogdensburg Railroad Company, Appellant; Byron H. Garland, Respondent, v. The Same, Appellant; Elisha Garrison, Respondent, v. The Same, Appellant
119 N.Y. 644·New York Court of Appeals·1890·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
Edgar C. Davis, Respondent, v. The Rome, Watertown and Ogdensburg Railroad Company, Appellant. Byron H. Garland, Respondent, v. The Same, Appellant. Elisha Garrison, Respondent, v. The Same, Appellant.
(Argued February 24, 1890;
decided March 11, 1890.)
Appeal from orders of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, made May 10, 1889, which affirmed orders of Special Term requiring defendant in each case to furnish the plaintiff a bill of particulars of a counter-claim.
Charles J. Babbitt for appellant.
Stone, Cannon and Petit for respondents.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to dismiss appeal; no opinion.
All concur.
Appeal dismissed.