Chiavarelli v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Chiavarelli v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad

88 N.Y.S. 869

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 23, 1904

StatusPublished

This text of 88 N.Y.S. 869 (Chiavarelli v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chiavarelli v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad, 88 N.Y.S. 869 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

SCOTT, J.

If any regard is to be given to the weight of evidence, this judgment must be reversed. The plaintiff swore positively that he was in the last car of the train when he was injured. It was conclusively proven that he was not in that car. With the testimony in that condition, both sides rested. The justice then recalled the witness, and questioned him as to whether he was positive that he was in the last car. In response to 'this- suggestion he changed his location to the car next to the last. The defendant then showed by persuasive evidence that plaintiff was not in that car. Notwithstanding, the justice promptly gave judgment for plaintiff. It would be a gross injustice [870]*870to permit the judgment to stand. It must be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

Judgment reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

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

SCOTT, J.

If any regard is to be given to the weight of evidence, this judgment must be reversed. The plaintiff swore positively that he was in the last car of the train when he was injured. It was conclusively proven that he was not in that car. With the testimony in that condition, both sides rested. The justice then recalled the witness, and questioned him as to whether he was positive that he was in the last car. In response to 'this- suggestion he changed his location to the car next to the last. The defendant then showed by persuasive evidence that plaintiff was not in that car. Notwithstanding, the justice promptly gave judgment for plaintiff. It would be a gross injustice [870]*870to permit the judgment to stand. It must be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

Judgment reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 N.Y.S. 869, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chiavarelli-v-new-york-central-hudson-river-railroad-nyappterm-1904.