Curtis v. . Hudson Valley Railway Company
107 N.E. 1075, 213 N.Y. 681, 1915 N.Y. LEXIS 1482
Opinion
Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
Concur: Willard Bartlett, Ch. J., Chase, Hogan, Miller and Cardozo, JJ.; Hiscock, J., dissents on the ground that improper evidence was received that the whistle did not blow and concerning the earnings of the decedent.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Curtis v. . Hudson Valley Railway Company, 107 N.E. 1075, 213 N.Y. 681, 1915 N.Y. LEXIS 1482 (N.Y. 1915).
107 N.E. 1075 (Curtis v. . Hudson Valley Railway Company) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.