Barney v. Oyster Bay & Huntington Steamboat Co.

New York Supreme Court

Barney v. Oyster Bay & Huntington Steamboat Co.

2 Thomp. & Cook 598

DecidedFebruary 15, 1874

StatusPublished

This text of 2 Thomp. & Cook 598 (Barney v. Oyster Bay & Huntington Steamboat Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barney v. Oyster Bay & Huntington Steamboat Co., 2 Thomp. & Cook 598 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1874).

Pincite

Opinion

Bar,nabd, P. J.

I think the justice at circuit erred in not nonsuiting the plaihtiff. There was but a single cause of action for "which plaintiff asked damages, and that was for a refusal to carry plaintiff on the 37th of October, and subsequently, “so long as he (plaintiff) transacted the business he was engaged in, to wit: His express business.” The evidence of the plaintiff clearly shows, that his claim was to travel as an expressman on the defendant’s boat. This he had no right to do. Barney v. Steamboat D. R. Martin, opinion by Judge Hunt, 8 Alb. Law Jour. 54.

The plaintiff in his complaint does not complain that he was refused as a passenger.

He does not claim it as a witness upon the trial. If he did, the evidence is overwhelming that such is not the fact. If it was right to send the case to the jury, their verdict was against the evidence.

Judgment reversed, and new trial granted, costs to abide event.

Judgment accordingly.

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

Bar,nabd, P. J.

I think the justice at circuit erred in not nonsuiting the plaihtiff. There was but a single cause of action for "which plaintiff asked damages, and that was for a refusal to carry plaintiff on the 37th of October, and subsequently, “so long as he (plaintiff) transacted the business he was engaged in, to wit: His express business.” The evidence of the plaintiff clearly shows, that his claim was to travel as an expressman on the defendant’s boat. This he had no right to do. Barney v. Steamboat D. R. Martin, opinion by Judge Hunt, 8 Alb. Law Jour. 54.

The plaintiff in his complaint does not complain that he was refused as a passenger.

He does not claim it as a witness upon the trial. If he did, the evidence is overwhelming that such is not the fact. If it was right to send the case to the jury, their verdict was against the evidence.

Judgment reversed, and new trial granted, costs to abide event.

Judgment accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Thomp. & Cook 598, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barney-v-oyster-bay-huntington-steamboat-co-nysupct-1874.