Dista v. Westchester Electric R.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Dista v. Westchester Electric R.

103 N.Y.S. 738

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedApril 10, 1907

StatusPublished

This text of 103 N.Y.S. 738 (Dista v. Westchester Electric R.) 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

Dista v. Westchester Electric R., 103 N.Y.S. 738 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

GIEGERICH, J.

The judgment must be reversed because of the failure on the plaintiff’s part to prove that the car on which she was riding at the time of her injury was operated by the defendant. All the competent evidence offered went to show that, not the defendant, but the Union Railway Company, operated the cars on the line on which the plaintiff was injured. The only thing having a tendency to show that the defendant operated them was a transfer,slip bearing its name; but, aside from any other question as to the significance of this slip, there was an entire absence of evidence to show that such use of its name was authorized by the defendant. In fact, the" defendant’s superintendent testified that it was issued by the Union Railway Company, and not by the defendant. On the record as presented, the complaint should have been dismissed for failure of proof.

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

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

GIEGERICH, J.

The judgment must be reversed because of the failure on the plaintiff’s part to prove that the car on which she was riding at the time of her injury was operated by the defendant. All the competent evidence offered went to show that, not the defendant, but the Union Railway Company, operated the cars on the line on which the plaintiff was injured. The only thing having a tendency to show that the defendant operated them was a transfer,slip bearing its name; but, aside from any other question as to the significance of this slip, there was an entire absence of evidence to show that such use of its name was authorized by the defendant. In fact, the" defendant’s superintendent testified that it was issued by the Union Railway Company, and not by the defendant. On the record as presented, the complaint should have been dismissed for failure of proof.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 N.Y.S. 738, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dista-v-westchester-electric-r-nyappterm-1907.