Burns v. . Matthews

New York Court of Appeals

Burns v. . Matthews

42 N.E. 543, 146 N.Y. 386, 1895 N.Y. LEXIS 708

New York Court of Appeals·Decided May 21, 1895·Published

Opinion

Haight, J.,

reads for affirmance.

All concur, except Bartlett, J., who dissents on the ground that Pethcal, the foreman, represented the defendant, the master, in such duties as the latter owed deceased for his safety and protection; that there was a conflict of evidence as tó whether the master discharged those duties and the plaintiff was entitled to go to the jury.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Haight, J.,

reads for affirmance.

All concur, except Bartlett, J., who dissents on the ground that Pethcal, the foreman, represented the defendant, the master, in such duties as the latter owed deceased for his safety and protection; that there was a conflict of evidence as tó whether the master discharged those duties and the plaintiff was entitled to go to the jury.

Judgment affirmed.

Burns v. . Matthews, 42 N.E. 543, 146 N.Y. 386, 1895 N.Y. LEXIS 708 (N.Y. 1895).

Pincite

42 N.E. 543 (Burns v. . Matthews) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.