Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges

CARL WIRTH, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. HUDSON AND MANHATTAN RAILROAD COMPANY,A CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by the Supreme Court.

For affirmance — THE CHANCELLOR, CHIEF JUSTICE, PARKER, LLOYD, CASE, DONGES, PERSKIE, DEAR, WELLS, WOLFSKEIL, RAFFERTY, COLE, JJ. 12.

For reversal — None.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

WIRTH v. HUDSON MANHATTAN R.R. CO
(Sep 22, 1937)