Chiert v. Interurban Street Railway Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Chiert v. Interurban Street Railway Co.

92 N.Y.S. 781

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMarch 21, 1905

StatusPublished

This text of 92 N.Y.S. 781 (Chiert v. Interurban Street Railway Co.) 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

Chiert v. Interurban Street Railway Co., 92 N.Y.S. 781 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1905).

Pincite

Opinions

SCOTT, J.

The judgment is right, and should be affirmed. It is idle for defendant to attempt to justify the act of its conductor by the assertion that it did not issue transfers at 116th street and Madison avenue, for the uncontradicted evidence is that the conductor of the 116th street car did actually issue such a transfer. Furthermore, it was the legal obligation of defendant to issue such a transfer, and we are not called upon to assume, without the strongest evidence, that defendant failed to comply with the law. Having received a transfer, the plaintiff was entitled to ride upon it. The damages are certainly not excessive, in view of the indignity to which plaintiff was subjected.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

O’GORMAN, J., concurs.

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

SCOTT, J.

The judgment is right, and should be affirmed. It is idle for defendant to attempt to justify the act of its conductor by the assertion that it did not issue transfers at 116th street and Madison avenue, for the uncontradicted evidence is that the conductor of the 116th street car did actually issue such a transfer. Furthermore, it was the legal obligation of defendant to issue such a transfer, and we are not called upon to assume, without the strongest evidence, that defendant failed to comply with the law. Having received a transfer, the plaintiff was entitled to ride upon it. The damages are certainly not excessive, in view of the indignity to which plaintiff was subjected.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

O’GORMAN, J., concurs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 N.Y.S. 781, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chiert-v-interurban-street-railway-co-nyappterm-1905.