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 New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company for the Closing of Certain Grade Crossings in the Town of Gates. The Town of Gates, Appellant; The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company et al., Respondents, 1903 — 176 N.Y. 561 · caselaw · US
General
In the Matter of the Application of The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company for the Closing of Certain Grade Crossings in the Town of Gates. The Town of Gates, Appellant; The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company et al., Respondents
176 N.Y. 561·New York Court of Appeals·1903·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 New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company for the Closing of Certain Grade Crossings in the Town of Gates. The Town of Gates, Appellant; The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company et al., Respondents.
Matter of M. T. G. & II. B. B. B. Go., 79 App. Div. 643, affirmed.
(Argued October 5, 1903;
decided October 20, 1903.)
Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered January 19, 1903, which affirmed a determination of the board of railroad commissioners closing certain grade crossings in the town of Gates.
George P. Lecher for appellant.
Edward Harris for respondents.
[MAJORITY]
Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
Concur: Pabkeb, Ch. J., O’Bbien, Babtlett, Mabtin, Vann, Cullen and Webneb, JJ.