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.
Samuel G. Craig, as Administrator, etc., Respondent, v. The Manhattan Railway Company, Appellant, 1886 — 103 N.Y. 669 · caselaw · US
Administrative
Samuel G. Craig, as Administrator, etc., Respondent, v. The Manhattan Railway Company, Appellant
103 N.Y. 669·New York Court of Appeals·1886·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
Samuel G. Craig, as Administrator, etc., Respondent, v. The Manhattan Railway Company, Appellant.
(Argued October 12, 1886 ;
decided November 23, 1886.)
Edward S. Rapallo for appellant. _
Peter Mitchell for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to affirm ; no opinion.
Andrews, Miller, Finch, and Danforth, JJ., concur; Roger, Ch. J., and Earl, J., do not vote; Rapallo, J., takes .no part.
Judgment affirmed.