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.
Edward H. Harriman, Respondent, v. Albert G. Howe et al., as Commissioners of Highways for the Town of Woodbury, Orange County, N. Y., 1898 — 155 N.Y. 683 · caselaw · US
General
Edward H. Harriman, Respondent, v. Albert G. Howe et al., as Commissioners of Highways for the Town of Woodbury, Orange County, N. Y.
155 N.Y. 683·New York Court of Appeals·1898·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
Edward H. Harriman, Respondent, v. Albert G. Howe et al., as Commissioners of Highways for the Town of Woodbury, Orange County, N. Y.
Barriman v. Bbwe, 78 Hun,. 280, affirmed.
(Argued March 16, 1898;
decided April 19, 1898.)
Appeal from an order of the late General Term of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered July 9, 1894, reversing a judgment in favor of defendants entered upon a decision of the court dismissing the complaint on trial at Special Term, and granting a new trial.
William F. O Neill-for appellants.
William, D. Guthrie and Stephen W. Fullerton for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Order affirmed and judgment absolute ordered for plaintiff on the stipulation, with costs ; no opinion.
All concur, except Yann, J., not voting.