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.
Alfred W. Barrows, Respondent, v. The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Appellant, 1898 — 156 N.Y. 699 · caselaw · US
General
Alfred W. Barrows, Respondent, v. The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Appellant
156 N.Y. 699·New York Court of Appeals·1898·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
Alfred W. Barrows, Respondent, v. The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Appellant.
Barrows v. B. T. O. & H. B. B. B. Go.. 13 Mise. Rep. 780, affirmed.
(Submitted June 15, 1898;
decided October 4, 1898.)
Appeal from a judgment of the General Term, of the late Superior Court of Buffalo, entered July 30, 1895, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict, and an order denying a motion for a new trial.
Charles A. Pooley for appellant.
Frank C. Ferguson for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
All concur, except O’Brien, J., absent.