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.
Emma Smith, as Administratrix of John Smith, Deceased, Appellant, v. The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Respondent, 1897 — 153 N.Y. 664 · caselaw · US
General
Emma Smith, as Administratrix of John Smith, Deceased, Appellant, v. The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Respondent
153 N.Y. 664·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
Emma Smith, as Administratrix of John Smith, Deceased, Appellant, v. The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Respondent.
Smith v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 88 Hun, 468, affirmed.
(Argued May 14, 1897;
decided June 8, 1897.)
Appeal from a judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered July 8, 1895, which affirmed a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a decision of the court dismissing the complaint on trial at Circuit.
T. F. Hamilton for appellant.
JR. A. Parmenter for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
All concur.