Colgate v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Colgate v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co.

107 N.Y.S. 1123

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 22, 1907

StatusPublished

This text of 107 N.Y.S. 1123 (Colgate v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Colgate v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 107 N.Y.S. 1123 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Judgment (51 Misc. Rep. 503, 100 N. Y. Supp. 650) modified, so far as to permit the defendant to enforce subdivision “k” of rule 14, on the ground that -there is not sufficient evidence to show that said rule is not reasonably necessary to insure the safe management of the defendant’s trains, and, as thus modified, the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

HOOKER, J., votes to affirm without modification.

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

PER CURIAM.

Judgment (51 Misc. Rep. 503, 100 N. Y. Supp. 650) modified, so far as to permit the defendant to enforce subdivision “k” of rule 14, on the ground that -there is not sufficient evidence to show that said rule is not reasonably necessary to insure the safe management of the defendant’s trains, and, as thus modified, the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

HOOKER, J., votes to affirm without modification.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

107 N.Y.S. 1123, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/colgate-v-new-york-cent-h-r-r-co-nyappdiv-1907.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack