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.
The Union Ferry Company of New York and Brooklyn, Claimant, etc., Petitioner, v. The New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company, 1910 — 218 U.S. 676 · caselaw · US
Civil Procedure · MBE-tested
The Union Ferry Company of New York and Brooklyn, Claimant, etc., Petitioner, v. The New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company
218 U.S. 676·Supreme Court of the United States·1910
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
No. 745.
The Union Ferry Company of New York and Brooklyn, Claimant, etc., Petitioner, v. The New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company.
November 7, 1910.
Mr. DeLagnel Berier and Mr. James, J. Macklin for petitioner.
Mr. William Greenough for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Petition for a writ .of certio-rari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.