Callaghan v. Rohde

Superior Court of New York

Callaghan v. Rohde

26 N.Y.S. 1133

CourtThe Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo

DecidedDecember 29, 1893

StatusPublished

This text of 26 N.Y.S. 1133 (Callaghan v. Rohde) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Callaghan v. Rohde, 26 N.Y.S. 1133 (superctny 1893).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, as owner of the tenement 52 Amsterdam avenue, was sued by his tenant, the plaintiff, for injuries alleged to have been received by tripping on the stairway, and falling down stairs. The ground of action was negligence by reason of defects said to exist in the oilcloth covering. All the questions tending to create a liability were disputed, and the case was carefully submitted to the jury, who found in favor of the defendant. This finding was made on conflicting evidence, and is amply sustained by the proofs. Indeed, the only ground upon which the judgment is assailed is for alleged error in admitting evidence under the plaintiff’s objection. We have carefully examined the exceptions taken,, and find them to be without merit. They require neither comment nor explanation. It follows that the judgment and order appealed from must be-affirmed, with costs.

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

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, as owner of the tenement 52 Amsterdam avenue, was sued by his tenant, the plaintiff, for injuries alleged to have been received by tripping on the stairway, and falling down stairs. The ground of action was negligence by reason of defects said to exist in the oilcloth covering. All the questions tending to create a liability were disputed, and the case was carefully submitted to the jury, who found in favor of the defendant. This finding was made on conflicting evidence, and is amply sustained by the proofs. Indeed, the only ground upon which the judgment is assailed is for alleged error in admitting evidence under the plaintiff’s objection. We have carefully examined the exceptions taken,, and find them to be without merit. They require neither comment nor explanation. It follows that the judgment and order appealed from must be-affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 N.Y.S. 1133, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/callaghan-v-rohde-superctny-1893.