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.
Kittie Crosby, as Administratrix of William Crosby, Deceased, Respondent, v. The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Appellant, 1897 — 153 N.Y. 681 · caselaw · US
General
Kittie Crosby, as Administratrix of William Crosby, Deceased, Respondent, v. The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Appellant
153 N.Y. 681·New York Court of Appeals·1897·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
Kittie Crosby, as Administratrix of William Crosby, Deceased, Respondent, v. The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Appellant.
Crosby v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 5 App. Div. 619, affirmed.
(Argued June 16, 1897;
decided October 5, 1897.)
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered April 23, 1896, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff, and also affirmed an order denying a motion for a new trial.
Frank LLisoock for appellant. .
Ceylon H. Lewis for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
All concur, except Gray, J., absent.