Arce v. Lamport & Holt, Ltd.

223 A.D. 721

Opinion

Judgment reversed upon the law and the facts, and a new trial granted, costs to appellant to abide the event. There was evidence sufficient to go to the jury upon the question as to whether the accident was caused by the failure to keep in order the wheelbarrow which plaintiff was ordered and compelled to use. (Matter of Tonawanda Iron & Steel Co., 234 Fed. 198; The Osceola, 189 U. S. 158; Malukas v. Overseas Shipping Co., Inc., 197 App. Div. 224; The Edith Godden, 23 Fed. 43; The Southwark, 191 U. S. 1; Marra v. Hamburg-Am. P. A. Gesellschaft, 180 App. Div. 75.) Lazansky, P. J., Rich, Kapper, Seeger and Carswell, JJ., concur.

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

Arce v. Lamport & Holt, Ltd., 223 A.D. 721 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1928).

223 A.D. 721 (Arce v. Lamport & Holt, Ltd.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

The Osceola
189 U.S. 158 (Supreme Court, 1903)
The Southwark
191 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 1903)
Marra v. Hamburg-Amerikanische Packetfahrt Actien Gesellschaft
180 A.D. 75 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1917)
Malukas v. Overseas Shipping Co.
197 A.D. 224 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1921)
The Edith Godden
23 F. 43 (S.D. New York, 1885)
In re Tonawanda Iron & Steel Co.
234 F. 198 (W.D. New York, 1916)