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.
Cornelia R. Ganiard, Respondent, v. The Rochester City and Brighton Railroad Company, Appellant, 1890 — 121 N.Y. 661 · caselaw · US
General
Cornelia R. Ganiard, Respondent, v. The Rochester City and Brighton Railroad Company, Appellant
121 N.Y. 661·New York Court of Appeals·1890·NY
All concur.
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
Cornelia R. Ganiard, Respondent, v. The Rochester City and Brighton Railroad Company, Appellant.
(Submitted March 21, 1890;
decided April 15, 1890.)
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the fifth judicial department, entered upon an order made October 19, 1888, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and affirmed an order denying a motion for a new trial.
Raines Brothers for appellant.
W. H. Beach for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to affirm; no opinion.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.