Donnelly v. Interurban Street Railway Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Donnelly v. Interurban Street Railway Co.

87 N.Y.S. 1132

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMarch 24, 1904

StatusPublished

This text of 87 N.Y.S. 1132 (Donnelly v. Interurban Street Railway 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

Donnelly v. Interurban Street Railway Co., 87 N.Y.S. 1132 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Under the peculiar circumstances of this case,, the questions relating to defendant’s negligence and to plaintiff’s contributory negligence were questions for the jury, and they were submitted under instructions which substantially guarded the rights of the defendant. The exception taken to the refusal to charge in the very language of the request is unavailable, in view of a proposition charged elsewhere and the charge considered as a whole; and what passed between the trial judge and the counsel for the defendant, toward the close of the examination of the motoman when recalled, is not, under all the circumstances disclosed by the record, of sufficient importance; to call for a reversal. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.

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

PER CURIAM.

Under the peculiar circumstances of this case,, the questions relating to defendant’s negligence and to plaintiff’s contributory negligence were questions for the jury, and they were submitted under instructions which substantially guarded the rights of the defendant. The exception taken to the refusal to charge in the very language of the request is unavailable, in view of a proposition charged elsewhere and the charge considered as a whole; and what passed between the trial judge and the counsel for the defendant, toward the close of the examination of the motoman when recalled, is not, under all the circumstances disclosed by the record, of sufficient importance; to call for a reversal. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 N.Y.S. 1132, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/donnelly-v-interurban-street-railway-co-nyappterm-1904.