Bolster v. New York City Railway

New York Supreme Court

Bolster v. New York City Railway

113 N.Y.S. 770

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 15, 1908

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 113 N.Y.S. 770 (Bolster v. New York City Railway) 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

Bolster v. New York City Railway, 113 N.Y.S. 770 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

GIEGERICH, J.

The plaintiff swore positively to the happening of the accident, and the defendant did not call any witness whatever in contradiction. So far as I can recall there were no circumstances indicating that the plaintiff’s testimony was improbable, surprising, or suspicious, and the defendant’s counsel has failed to call attention to any. In such a situation the testimony of the plaintiff should not have been disbelieved. Hull v. Littauer, 162 N. Y. 569, 57 N. E. 102; Littlefield v. Lawrence, 83 App. Div. 327, 82 N. Y. Supp. 25; Kappes v. N. Y. City Ry., 50 Misc. Rep. 534, 99 N. Y. Supp. 322; Lewis v. N. Y. City Ry., 50 Misc. Rep. 535, 99 N. Y. Supp. 462; Johnson v. Doll, 11 Misc. Rep. 345, 348, 32 N. Y. Supp. 132. The verdict of the jury in favor of the defendant must therefore be set aside.

Motion granted, without costs.

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

GIEGERICH, J.

The plaintiff swore positively to the happening of the accident, and the defendant did not call any witness whatever in contradiction. So far as I can recall there were no circumstances indicating that the plaintiff’s testimony was improbable, surprising, or suspicious, and the defendant’s counsel has failed to call attention to any. In such a situation the testimony of the plaintiff should not have been disbelieved. Hull v. Littauer, 162 N. Y. 569, 57 N. E. 102; Littlefield v. Lawrence, 83 App. Div. 327, 82 N. Y. Supp. 25; Kappes v. N. Y. City Ry., 50 Misc. Rep. 534, 99 N. Y. Supp. 322; Lewis v. N. Y. City Ry., 50 Misc. Rep. 535, 99 N. Y. Supp. 462; Johnson v. Doll, 11 Misc. Rep. 345, 348, 32 N. Y. Supp. 132. The verdict of the jury in favor of the defendant must therefore be set aside.

Motion granted, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 N.Y.S. 770, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bolster-v-new-york-city-railway-nysupct-1908.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack