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.
David J. King et al., Executors of Edward J. King, Deceased, Respondents, v. The Metropolitan Elevated Railway Company et al., Appellants, 1899 — 158 N.Y. 724 · caselaw · US
General
David J. King et al., Executors of Edward J. King, Deceased, Respondents, v. The Metropolitan Elevated Railway Company et al., Appellants
158 N.Y. 724·New York Court of Appeals·1899·NY
All concur, except Parker, Ch. J., not sitting.
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
David J. King et al., Executors of Edward J. King, Deceased, Respondents, v. The Metropolitan Elevated Railway Company et al., Appellants.
(Argued March 8, 1899;
decided March 24, 1899.)
Appeal from a judgment of the late General Term of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered June 27, 1895, upon an order affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiffs entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term.
King v. Metropolitan El. R. Co., 87 Hun, 623, affirmed.
Arthur 0. Townsend, Julien T. Davies and Charles A. Gardiner for appellants.
J. Archibald Murray for respondents.
[MAJORITY]
Judgment and order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.-
All concur, except Parker, Ch. J., not sitting.