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.
Carlos P. Tucker, Respondent, v. The Edison Electric Illuminating Company of New York, Appellant, 1906 — 184 N.Y. 548 · caselaw · US
General
Carlos P. Tucker, Respondent, v. The Edison Electric Illuminating Company of New York, Appellant
184 N.Y. 548·New York Court of Appeals·1906·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
Carlos P. Tucker, Respondent, v. The Edison Electric Illuminating Company of New York, Appellant.
Tucker v. Edison Electric Ill. Co., 100 App. Div. 407, affirmed.
(Argued February 7, 1906;
decided February 27, 1906.)
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered January 14, 1905, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term.
Henry J. Hemmens and Samuel A. Beardsley for appellant.
George J. McEvoan and Frank M. Hardenbrook for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Edward T. Bartlett, Haight, Vann, Willard Bartlett and Chase, JJ.