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.
In the Matter of the Application of the Village of Waverly, Appellant, for a Writ of Mandamus against Erie Railroad Company, Respondent; In the Matter of the Application of the Village of Waverly, Appellant, for a Writ of Mandamus against Waverly and State Line Railway Company and its Lessee, Lehigh Valley Railroad Company, Respondents, 1899 — 158 N.Y. 710 · caselaw · US
Civil Procedure · MBE-tested
In the Matter of the Application of the Village of Waverly, Appellant, for a Writ of Mandamus against Erie Railroad Company, Respondent; In the Matter of the Application of the Village of Waverly, Appellant, for a Writ of Mandamus against Waverly and State Line Railway Company and its Lessee, Lehigh Valley Railroad Company, Respondents
158 N.Y. 710·New York Court of Appeals·1899·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
In the Matter of the Application of the Village of Waverly, Appellant, for a Writ of Mandamus against Erie Railroad Company, Respondent. In the Matter of the Application of the Village of Waverly, Appellant, for a Writ of Mandamus against Waverly and State Line Railway Company and its Lessee, Lehigh Valley Railroad Company, Respondents.
(Argued February 28, 1899;
decided March 14, 1899.)
Appeals from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department in each of the above-entitled proceedings, entered December 3, 1898, reversing orders of Special Term granting peremptory writs of mandamus directing the defendants to lay out a street across their tracks in the village of Waverly.
Matter of Village of Waverly, 35 App. Div. 38, affirmed.
Frederick E Fawkes for appellant.
Frederick Collin for Erie Railway Company, respondent.
George M. Diven for Waverly. and State Line Railway Company et al., respondents.
[MAJORITY]
Orders affirmed, with costs, on opinion in People ex rel. City of Niagara Falls v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co. (158 N. Y. 410).