Solarz v. Manhattan Railway Co.

11 Misc. 715, 65 N.Y. St. Rep. 882
The Superior Court of New York City·Decided January 15, 1895·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The judgment and order are affirmed, with costs, on the opinion filed by McAdam, J., the learned trial judge, upon the denial of the motion for a new trial.

Present: Freedman and Gildersleeve, JJ.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Solarz v. Manhattan Railway Co., 11 Misc. 715, 65 N.Y. St. Rep. 882 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1895).

11 Misc. 715 (Solarz v. Manhattan Railway Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ingalls v. Monte Cristo Oil & Development Co.
139 P. 97 (California Court of Appeal, 1914)
Brady v. City of New York
149 A.D. 816 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1912)
Holloway v. McWilliams
97 A.D. 360 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1904)
Cunningham v. Sicilian Asphalt Paving Co.
63 N.Y.S. 357 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1900)