Collins v. Star Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Collins v. Star Co.

112 N.Y.S. 1055

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedNovember 24, 1908

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 112 N.Y.S. 1055 (Collins v. Star 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

Collins v. Star Co., 112 N.Y.S. 1055 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiffs brought this action to recover the value of a horse hired by them to the defendant, which was not return[1056]*1056ed to the plaintiffs. The defense was that the horse had been killed by a third party through no negligence on the part of the defendant. The pleadings were oral. Upon the trial the hiring failure to return and value of the horse were not contested. The plaintiffs proved a prima facie case. The defendant to overcome the presumption of liability arising from its failure to return the horse introduced the testimony of two witnesses who were drivers on the wagon to which the horse was attached. Both of these witnesses testified that on the day of the accident, while driving north on the east car track on East Broadway, as they approached Rutgers street, they saw a horse and wagon owned by one Larkins coming south on the west car track on East Broadway; that, when five feet past Rutgers street at the intersection of East Broadway, Larkins’ horse and wagon turned suddenly east into Rutgers street, and the pole of the wagon struck the horse attached to the defendant’s wagon, causing fatal injuries; that the defendant’s wagon was moving slowly, and, in an effort to avoid the accident, the defendant’s driver swung the horse to the right but could not avoid the collision; that the defendant’s driver ran after and caught Larkins’ driver, who seemed intoxicated. The horse died at the place of the accident. This evidence was sufficient to overcome the presumption of liability raised by defendant’s failure to return the horse, and, in the absence of any proof tending to show that the accident was due to negligence or lack or ordinary care and prudence on the part of the defendant, the complaint should have been dismissed.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

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

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiffs brought this action to recover the value of a horse hired by them to the defendant, which was not return[1056]*1056ed to the plaintiffs. The defense was that the horse had been killed by a third party through no negligence on the part of the defendant. The pleadings were oral. Upon the trial the hiring failure to return and value of the horse were not contested. The plaintiffs proved a prima facie case. The defendant to overcome the presumption of liability arising from its failure to return the horse introduced the testimony of two witnesses who were drivers on the wagon to which the horse was attached. Both of these witnesses testified that on the day of the accident, while driving north on the east car track on East Broadway, as they approached Rutgers street, they saw a horse and wagon owned by one Larkins coming south on the west car track on East Broadway; that, when five feet past Rutgers street at the intersection of East Broadway, Larkins’ horse and wagon turned suddenly east into Rutgers street, and the pole of the wagon struck the horse attached to the defendant’s wagon, causing fatal injuries; that the defendant’s wagon was moving slowly, and, in an effort to avoid the accident, the defendant’s driver swung the horse to the right but could not avoid the collision; that the defendant’s driver ran after and caught Larkins’ driver, who seemed intoxicated. The horse died at the place of the accident. This evidence was sufficient to overcome the presumption of liability raised by defendant’s failure to return the horse, and, in the absence of any proof tending to show that the accident was due to negligence or lack or ordinary care and prudence on the part of the defendant, the complaint should have been dismissed.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 N.Y.S. 1055, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/collins-v-star-co-nyappterm-1908.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack