Byron v. New York State Printing Telegraph Co.

New York Supreme Court

Byron v. New York State Printing Telegraph Co.

26 Barb. 39, 1857 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 205

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 2, 1857

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 26 Barb. 39 (Byron v. New York State Printing Telegraph 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

Byron v. New York State Printing Telegraph Co., 26 Barb. 39, 1857 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 205 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1857).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Oourt, Mitchell, P. J.

In Keegan v. The Western Rail Road Company, (4 Seld. 175,) the complaint is very similar to this, and 'judgment for the plaintiff was affirmed. Admitted knowledge in the defendants, of the defect in the engine, was not expressly stated there, but proof of such knowledge was received, under a complaint alleging negligence in the defendants. If that complaint had been defective, judgment upon it should not have been affirmed. It is true, [41]*41the point Was not raised, whether, under such a complaint, proof of knowledge by the defendants, of the defect in the engine, could be given. But the counsel for the company would hardly have omitted such a point, if they had deemed it tenable.

[New York General Term, November 2, 1857,

In this case the allegation of negligence would be sustained by proving the danger from the defect in the pole, in this case, and that it was known to the defendants. For this reason, the demurrer should be overruled, with leave to the defendants to amend, on payment of costs of the demurrer.

Order affirmed.

Mitchell, Roosevelt and Peabody, Justices.]

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

By the Oourt, Mitchell, P. J.

In Keegan v. The Western Rail Road Company, (4 Seld. 175,) the complaint is very similar to this, and 'judgment for the plaintiff was affirmed. Admitted knowledge in the defendants, of the defect in the engine, was not expressly stated there, but proof of such knowledge was received, under a complaint alleging negligence in the defendants. If that complaint had been defective, judgment upon it should not have been affirmed. It is true, [41]*41the point Was not raised, whether, under such a complaint, proof of knowledge by the defendants, of the defect in the engine, could be given. But the counsel for the company would hardly have omitted such a point, if they had deemed it tenable.

[New York General Term, November 2, 1857,

In this case the allegation of negligence would be sustained by proving the danger from the defect in the pole, in this case, and that it was known to the defendants. For this reason, the demurrer should be overruled, with leave to the defendants to amend, on payment of costs of the demurrer.

Order affirmed.

Mitchell, Roosevelt and Peabody, Justices.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 Barb. 39, 1857 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 205, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/byron-v-new-york-state-printing-telegraph-co-nysupct-1857.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack