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.
Amos F. Eno et al., Individually and as Executors of Amos R. Eno, Deceased, Respondents, v. The New York Elevated Railroad Company et al., Appellants, 1899 — 158 N.Y. 730 · caselaw · US
General
Amos F. Eno et al., Individually and as Executors of Amos R. Eno, Deceased, Respondents, v. The New York Elevated Railroad Company et al., Appellants
158 N.Y. 730·New York Court of Appeals·1899·NY
All concur, except Vann, J., not voting.
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
Amos F. Eno et al., Individually and as Executors of Amos R. Eno, Deceased, Respondents, v. The New York Elevated Railroad Company et al., Appellants.
(Argued March 13, 1899;
decided April 18, 1899.)
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered November 30,1896, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiffs entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term.
Eno v. N. Y. Elevated R. R. Co., 10 App. Div. 626, affirmed.
Julien T. Davies and Charles A. Gardiner for appellants.
William Mitchell for respondents.
[MAJORITY]
Judgment affirmed, with costs, on authority of Jamieson v. Kings County Elevated R. Co. (147 N. Y. 322), and Witmark v. New York Elevated R. R. Co. (149 N. Y. 393).
All concur, except Vann, J., not voting.