Central New York Coach Lines, Inc. v. Syracuse Herald Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Central New York Coach Lines, Inc. v. Syracuse Herald Co.

249 A.D. 692, 291 N.Y.S. 247, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5494

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

DecidedNovember 18, 1936

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 249 A.D. 692 (Central New York Coach Lines, Inc. v. Syracuse Herald Co.) 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

Central New York Coach Lines, Inc. v. Syracuse Herald Co., 249 A.D. 692, 291 N.Y.S. 247, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5494 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, entered in Madison county clerk’s office April 27, 1936, denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint made on the ground that in an earlier action it had been determined that defendant’s employee and agent, for whose negligence a recovery herein is sought, was not negligent. The administrator of Grady, defendant’s employee, heretofore brought an action against this plaintiff to recover for decedent’s death alleged to have been occasioned by this plaintiff’s negligence. This plaintiff in that action pleaded, inter alia, that Grady was negligent, and sought to recover against his representative for this plaintiff’s [the then defendant’s] property loss. Evidence on this issue was received and it was submitted to the jury. The verdict was no cause of action, and thus adverse to the defendant’s [this plaintiff’s] counterclaim. The judgment there is res judicata. (Bigelow v. Old Dominion Copper Co., 225 U. S. 111, 128; Wolf v. Kenyon, 242 App. Div. 116; U. S. Fire Ins. Co. v. Adirondack P. & L. Corp., 206 id. 584.) Order reversed, on the law and facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion to dismiss complaint granted, with ten dollars costs. Hill, P. J., Rhodes, McNamee, Crapser and Heffernan, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, entered in Madison county clerk’s office April 27, 1936, denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint made on the ground that in an earlier action it had been determined that defendant’s employee and agent, for whose negligence a recovery herein is sought, was not negligent. The administrator of Grady, defendant’s employee, heretofore brought an action against this plaintiff to recover for decedent’s death alleged to have been occasioned by this plaintiff’s negligence. This plaintiff in that action pleaded, inter alia, that Grady was negligent, and sought to recover against his representative for this plaintiff’s [the then defendant’s] property loss. Evidence on this issue was received and it was submitted to the jury. The verdict was no cause of action, and thus adverse to the defendant’s [this plaintiff’s] counterclaim. The judgment there is res judicata. (Bigelow v. Old Dominion Copper Co., 225 U. S. 111, 128; Wolf v. Kenyon, 242 App. Div. 116; U. S. Fire Ins. Co. v. Adirondack P. & L. Corp., 206 id. 584.) Order reversed, on the law and facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion to dismiss complaint granted, with ten dollars costs. Hill, P. J., Rhodes, McNamee, Crapser and Heffernan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D. 692, 291 N.Y.S. 247, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5494, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/central-new-york-coach-lines-inc-v-syracuse-herald-co-nyappdiv-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack