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.
Henry H. Holly et al., as Trustees, etc., et al., Respondents, v. The Manhattan Railway Company, Appellant, 1896 — 149 N.Y. 567 · caselaw · US
General
Henry H. Holly et al., as Trustees, etc., et al., Respondents, v. The Manhattan Railway Company, Appellant
149 N.Y. 567·New York Court of Appeals·1896·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
Henry H. Holly et al., as Trustees, etc., et al., Respondents, v. The Manhattan Railway Company, Appellant.
Holly v. Manh. R. Co., 8 Misc. Rep. 684, affirmed.
(Argued March 4, 1896;
decided April 7, 1896.)
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Superior Court of the city of Hew York, entered upon an order made May 7, 1894, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at an equity term.
Reuben Leslie Maynard for appellant.
Henry G. Atwater for respondents.
[MAJORITY]
Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
All concur.