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.
Mason T. Barker, Respondent, v. The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Appellant; William Gardner, Jr., Respondent, v. The Same, Appellant, 1875 — 61 N.Y. 655 · caselaw · US
General
Mason T. Barker, Respondent, v. The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Appellant; William Gardner, Jr., Respondent, v. The Same, Appellant
61 N.Y. 655·New York Commission of Appeals·1875·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
Mason T. Barker, Respondent, v. The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Appellant. William Gardner, Jr., Respondent, v. The Same, Appellant.
(Submitted September 23, 1874;
decided January term, 1875.)
These were actions to recover statutory penalties for taking excessive fare. Decided upon authority of Fisher v. N. Y. C. and H. R. R. R. Co. (46 N. Y., 644).
A. P. Lening for the appellant.
Williams & Potter for the respondents.
[MAJORITY — Dwight, C.,]
Dwight, C.,
reads for modification, so as to reduce recovery to one penalty and excess of fares paid, and as thus modified for affirmance.
All concur.
Judgment accordingly.