Cinberg v. Interurban Street Railway Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Cinberg v. Interurban Street Railway Co.

92 N.Y.S. 1

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided February 16, 1905·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant admitted on the record that it operated and controlled both lines of cars. The defendant made no motion for judgment on any ground, and did not suggest any failure of proof as to the contract between the two companies. If it had objected on that score, we may assume that the defect would have been supplied. The objection cannot be taken for the first time on appeal.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

PER CURIAM.

The defendant admitted on the record that it operated and controlled both lines of cars. The defendant made no motion for judgment on any ground, and did not suggest any failure of proof as to the contract between the two companies. If it had objected on that score, we may assume that the defect would have been supplied. The objection cannot be taken for the first time on appeal.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Cinberg v. Interurban Street Railway Co., 92 N.Y.S. 1 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1905).

Pincite

92 N.Y.S. 1 (Cinberg v. Interurban Street Railway Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.