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

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedFebruary 16, 1905

StatusPublished

This text of 92 N.Y.S. 1 (Cinberg 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

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

Pincite

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 N.Y.S. 1, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cinberg-v-interurban-street-railway-co-nyappterm-1905.