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.
Mary D. Youngs, as Administratrix of Frederick A. Youngs, Deceased, Appellant, v. New York, Ontario and Western Railway Company, Respondent, 1897 — 154 N.Y. 764 · caselaw · US
General
Mary D. Youngs, as Administratrix of Frederick A. Youngs, Deceased, Appellant, v. New York, Ontario and Western Railway Company, Respondent
154 N.Y. 764·New York Court of Appeals·1897·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
Mary D. Youngs, as Administratrix of Frederick A. Youngs, Deceased, Appellant, v. New York, Ontario and Western Railway Company, Respondent.
Young v. N. Y., Ontario & W. R. R. Co., 77 Hun, 612, affirmed.
(Argued November 23, 1897;
decided December 14, 1897.)
Appeal from a judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered May 26,1894, which affirmed a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a decision of the court dismissing the complaint on trial at Circuit, and also affirmed an order denying a motion for a new trial.
P. O. J. De Angelis for appellant.
Howard D. Newton for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Judgment affirmed, with costs ; no opinion.
All concur, except Martin, J., who takes no part.