Bolster v. New York City Railway

113 N.Y.S. 770
New York Supreme Court·Decided July 15, 1908·Published·Cited by 2 cases

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

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

113 N.Y.S. 770 (Bolster v. New York City Railway) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In re the Estate of Carney
150 Misc. 590 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1934)
O'Donnell v. Caspary
113 N.Y.S. 771 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1908)