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.
William H. Scott, as Executor, etc., Respondent, v. The Metropolitan Elevated Railway Company et al., Appellants, 1893 — 140 N.Y. 623 · caselaw · US
General
William H. Scott, as Executor, etc., Respondent, v. The Metropolitan Elevated Railway Company et al., Appellants
140 N.Y. 623·New York Court of Appeals·1893·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
William H. Scott, as Executor, etc., Respondent, v. The Metropolitan Elevated Railway Company et al., Appellants.
(Argued October 26, 1893;
decided November 28, 1893.)
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Superior Court of the city of New York, entered upon an order made December I, 1891, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and affirmed an order denying a motion for a new trial.
Arthur 0. Townsend for appellants.
L. II. Arnold, Jr., for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to affirm; no opinion.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.