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.
William Chappell, Respondent, v. The Rochester and Pittsburgh Railroad Company, Appellant, 1887 — 106 N.Y. 664 · caselaw · US
Administrative
William Chappell, Respondent, v. The Rochester and Pittsburgh Railroad Company, Appellant
106 N.Y. 664·New York Court of Appeals·1887·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
William Chappell, Respondent, v. The Rochester and Pittsburgh Railroad Company, Appellant.
(Argued June 20, 1887;
decided July 1, 1887.)
Marítn W. Oooke for' appellant.
J. A. Stull for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to affirm ; no opinion.
All concur, except Ruger, Oh. J., and Rapadlo, J., not voting.
Judgment- affirmed.