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.
James F. Cunningham, Respondent, v. The Lake Shore and Michigan Southern Railway Company, Appellant, 1896 — 150 N.Y. 569 · caselaw · US
General
James F. Cunningham, Respondent, v. The Lake Shore and Michigan Southern Railway Company, Appellant
150 N.Y. 569·New York Court of Appeals·1896·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
James F. Cunningham, Respondent, v. The Lake Shore and Michigan Southern Railway Company, Appellant.
(Argued October 5, 1896;
decided October 20, 1896.)
Cunningham v. L. 8. & M. 8. E. Co., 5 App. Div. 619, affirmed.
Appeal from order of tlie Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, made April 18, 1896, which affirmed an order of the Special Term of the late Superior Court of the city of Buffalo, amending the judgment roll in the above-entitled action.
Will lam G. Greene for appellant.
George IF. Cothran for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Order affirmed, with costs ; no opinion.
All concur, except Andbews, Ch. J., not sitting.