Buseman v. McGovern

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Buseman v. McGovern

159 A.D. 917, 144 N.Y.S. 1107

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 15, 1913

StatusPublished

This text of 159 A.D. 917 (Buseman v. McGovern) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Buseman v. McGovern, 159 A.D. 917, 144 N.Y.S. 1107 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment and order reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide the event, upon the ground that fairly construed the complaint did not charge omission to oil the derrick as one of the defects. The evidence with regard to such omission was seasonably objected to, and when received failed to establish by a fair preponderance thereof that the breaking of the gooseneck was due to such omission. Burr, Stapleton and Putnam, JJ., concurred; Jenks, P. J., and Carr, J., concurred in the result.

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

Judgment and order reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide the event, upon the ground that fairly construed the complaint did not charge omission to oil the derrick as one of the defects. The evidence with regard to such omission was seasonably objected to, and when received failed to establish by a fair preponderance thereof that the breaking of the gooseneck was due to such omission. Burr, Stapleton and Putnam, JJ., concurred; Jenks, P. J., and Carr, J., concurred in the result.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

159 A.D. 917, 144 N.Y.S. 1107, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/buseman-v-mcgovern-nyappdiv-1913.