Christopher v. Railway Express Agency, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Christopher v. Railway Express Agency, Inc.

261 A.D. 1017, 25 N.Y.S.2d 848, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8562

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 5, 1941·Published

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment for damages on account of personal injuries, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial on the ground of newly-discovered evidence. Plaintiff, with others, was removing an ice-cream counter weighing more than one thousand pounds, from the basement of a store in Schenectady. He was at the front. It was being rolled toward or into a chute which extended from the basement level to the street. An employee of the defendant sent a box of merchandise down the chute from the street. It stmek plaintiff in the back and threw him against the counter, inflicting numerous [1018]*1018injuries, including a double inguinal hernia. The evidence sustains the verdict. The motion for a new trial because of newly-discovered evidence was properly denied. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Order denying motion for a new trial affirmed, with ten dollars costs. Hill, P. J., Crapser, Bliss, Heffeman and Schenck, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment for damages on account of personal injuries, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial on the ground of newly-discovered evidence. Plaintiff, with others, was removing an ice-cream counter weighing more than one thousand pounds, from the basement of a store in Schenectady. He was at the front. It was being rolled toward or into a chute which extended from the basement level to the street. An employee of the defendant sent a box of merchandise down the chute from the street. It stmek plaintiff in the back and threw him against the counter, inflicting numerous [1018]*1018injuries, including a double inguinal hernia. The evidence sustains the verdict. The motion for a new trial because of newly-discovered evidence was properly denied. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Order denying motion for a new trial affirmed, with ten dollars costs. Hill, P. J., Crapser, Bliss, Heffeman and Schenck, JJ., concur.

Christopher v. Railway Express Agency, Inc., 261 A.D. 1017, 25 N.Y.S.2d 848, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8562 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

261 A.D. 1017 (Christopher v. Railway Express Agency, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.