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.
Bridget McDonald, as Administratrix, etc., Appellant, v. The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Respondent, 1893 — 138 N.Y. 663 · caselaw · US
General
Bridget McDonald, as Administratrix, etc., Appellant, v. The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Respondent
138 N.Y. 663·New York Court of Appeals·1893·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
Bridget McDonald, as Administratrix, etc., Appellant, v. The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Respondent.
(Argued June 6, 1893;
decided June 27, 1893.)
Appeal from order of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the fifth judicial department, made March 29, 1892, which reversed an order denying a motion for a new trial.
George F. Yeoman for appellant.
Albert 3. Harris for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to affirm order, and for judgment absolute for defendant, on stipulation; no opinion.
All concur, except Andrews, Oh. J., not voting.
Order affirmed, and judgment accordingly.