Dobbins v. Mumblow

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dobbins v. Mumblow

257 A.D. 1017, 12 N.Y.S.2d 859, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8922

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

DecidedJune 13, 1939

StatusPublished

This text of 257 A.D. 1017 (Dobbins v. Mumblow) 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

Dobbins v. Mumblow, 257 A.D. 1017, 12 N.Y.S.2d 859, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8922 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order setting aside the verdict of the jury and from [1018]*1018a judgment of nonsuit dismissing the complaint as against the defendants, Mum-blow, the driver, and Delauria the owner of one of the cars involved in the accident. The defendant Mudry did not appeal from the judgment. His car was in collision with the car driven by Mumblow. There was evidence to the effect that Mumblow was partially cross-wise of the east lane of traffic, and stopped therein, in front of the on-coming Mudry car, and did not have reasonable and proper lights. Order and judgment reversed on the facts, and new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. Hill, P. J., Crapser, and Heffeman JJ., concur; Bliss, J., favors a reversal of the order and judgment but dissents from the granting of a new trial, and votes to reinstate the verdict upon the ground that there was a clear question of fact which the jury resolved in favor of the plaintiff.

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

Appeal from an order setting aside the verdict of the jury and from [1018]*1018a judgment of nonsuit dismissing the complaint as against the defendants, Mum-blow, the driver, and Delauria the owner of one of the cars involved in the accident. The defendant Mudry did not appeal from the judgment. His car was in collision with the car driven by Mumblow. There was evidence to the effect that Mumblow was partially cross-wise of the east lane of traffic, and stopped therein, in front of the on-coming Mudry car, and did not have reasonable and proper lights. Order and judgment reversed on the facts, and new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. Hill, P. J., Crapser, and Heffeman JJ., concur; Bliss, J., favors a reversal of the order and judgment but dissents from the granting of a new trial, and votes to reinstate the verdict upon the ground that there was a clear question of fact which the jury resolved in favor of the plaintiff.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 A.D. 1017, 12 N.Y.S.2d 859, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8922, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dobbins-v-mumblow-nyappdiv-1939.