Crosby v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Crosby v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad

5 A.D. 619, 38 N.Y.S. 1142, 72 N.Y. St. Rep. 866

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

DecidedApril 15, 1896

StatusPublished

This text of 5 A.D. 619 (Crosby v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad) 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

Crosby v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad, 5 A.D. 619, 38 N.Y.S. 1142, 72 N.Y. St. Rep. 866 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

Mem. by Adams. J.:

This case appears to have been twice tried. Upon the first trial a nonsuit was directed which was set aside by the General Term of the fourth department and a new trial ordered. Upon the second trial the case was submitted to the jury and resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff. The only question to which our attention has been directed upon this appeal relates to the contributory negligence of the plaintiff’s intestate. We are unable to discover that the evidence upon the second trial varies in any appreciable degree from that which was -offered upon the former trial, so far as this question is concerned, nor does the appellant's counsel make any such contention upon the argument. In view, therefore, of the decision of the General Term it cannot be said that any error was committed by the learned trial justice in submitting this question to the jury. The judgment and order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs, upon the opinion of Hardin, P. J., delivered at the General Term and reported in 88 Hun, 196. All concurred,

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

Mem. by Adams. J.:

This case appears to have been twice tried. Upon the first trial a nonsuit was directed which was set aside by the General Term of the fourth department and a new trial ordered. Upon the second trial the case was submitted to the jury and resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff. The only question to which our attention has been directed upon this appeal relates to the contributory negligence of the plaintiff’s intestate. We are unable to discover that the evidence upon the second trial varies in any appreciable degree from that which was -offered upon the former trial, so far as this question is concerned, nor does the appellant's counsel make any such contention upon the argument. In view, therefore, of the decision of the General Term it cannot be said that any error was committed by the learned trial justice in submitting this question to the jury. The judgment and order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs, upon the opinion of Hardin, P. J., delivered at the General Term and reported in 88 Hun, 196. All concurred,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 A.D. 619, 38 N.Y.S. 1142, 72 N.Y. St. Rep. 866, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crosby-v-new-york-central-hudson-river-railroad-nyappdiv-1896.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack