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.
Gustave Shiff et al., Appellants, v. The New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company, Respondent, 1880 — 81 N.Y. 638 · caselaw · US
Administrative
Gustave Shiff et al., Appellants, v. The New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company, Respondent
81 N.Y. 638·New York Court of Appeals·1880·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
Gustave Shiff et al., Appellants, v. The New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company, Respondent.
(Argued March 12, 1880;
decided June 8, 1880.)
(Reported below, 16 Hun, 278.)
F. R. Sherman for appellant.
Frank Loomis for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
' Agree to affirm on opinion of court below. Folgeb, Ch. J., Andrews, Rapadlo and Earl, JJ., concur; Daneorth, J., reads for reversal and new trial; Miller, J., concurs.
Judgment affirm