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.
Julius Weiss, as Administrator of Bertha Weiss, Deceased, Appellant, v. Metropolitan Street Railway Company, Respondent, 1901 — 165 N.Y. 665 · caselaw · US
General
Julius Weiss, as Administrator of Bertha Weiss, Deceased, Appellant, v. Metropolitan Street Railway Company, Respondent
165 N.Y. 665·New York Court of Appeals·1901·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
Julius Weiss, as Administrator of Bertha Weiss, Deceased, Appellant, v. Metropolitan Street Railway Company, Respondent.
Weiss v. Metropolitan Street Ry. Co., 33 App. Div. 221, affirmed.
(Argued January 22, 1901;
decided February 8, 1901.)
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered October 18, 1898, affirming a judgment in favor óf defendant entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court at a Trial Term, and an order denying a motion for a new trial.
S. Livingston Samuels and Otto Horwitz for appellant.
Charles F. Brown and Henry A. Robinson, for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Judgment affirmed, with costs ; no opinion.
Concur: Barker, Ch. J., Gray, Bartlett, Martin, Vann and Werner, JJ. Dissenting: Cullen, J.