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 Grade Crossing Commissioners of the City of Buffalo for the Appointment of Commissioners, Appellants; James W. Wadsworth et al., Respondents; The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Appellant, 1897 — 153 N.Y. 676 · caselaw · US
General
In the Matter of the Application of The Grade Crossing Commissioners of the City of Buffalo for the Appointment of Commissioners, Appellants; James W. Wadsworth et al., Respondents; The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Appellant
153 N.Y. 676·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
In the Matter of the Application of The Grade Crossing Commissioners of the City of Buffalo for the Appointment of Commissioners, Appellants; James W. Wadsworth et al., Respondents; The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Appellant.
Beported below, 17 App. Div. 54.
(Argued June 21, 1897;
decided June 25, 1897.)
Motion to dismiss an appeal from an order and judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered thereon April 28, 1897, which affirmed an order of Special Term confirming the report of commissioners appointed under the Grade Crossing Act of the City of Buffalo (L. 1888, ch. 345), making an award to respondents for an iniury to their lands.
The motion was made upon the ground that the order of the Appellate Division was not re viewable in the Court of Appeals.
Merbei't P. Bissell for motion.
Charles A. Pooley opposed.
[MAJORITY]
Motion denied, with ten dollars costs.