Ellingsen v. Linstrand

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ellingsen v. Linstrand

121 A.D. 268, 105 N.Y.S. 598, 1907 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1753

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

DecidedJuly 23, 1907

StatusPublished

This text of 121 A.D. 268 (Ellingsen v. Linstrand) 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

Ellingsen v. Linstrand, 121 A.D. 268, 105 N.Y.S. 598, 1907 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1753 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1907).

Pincite

Opinions

Rich, J.:

The only question to he considered is whether the plaintiff .made out a case entitling him to go to the jury. While the evidence might not he regarded as entirely satisfactory, yet there was sufficient, if the jury believed it, upon which to base a finding that this was a ferocious, dog,, kept by defendant for several year's, with knowledge of his vicious disposition, arid that the attack -on plaintiff '.was not invited; that he was not at fault. Plaintiff entered the stable where the dog’ was confined, at the request of defendant’s stableman in -charge, to hold a lantern, and was immediately attacked by the dog and severely bitten. , - .

We think the plaintiff made out-a case éntitling him to go'to the jury upon all the questions involved,- and the' judgment must, [269]*269therefore, be reversed and a new trial ordered, costs to abide the event.

Woodwabd, Jenks, Hookee and' Gaynoe, JJ., concurred; the latter in separate memorandum. •

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

Rich, J.:

The only question to he considered is whether the plaintiff .made out a case entitling him to go to the jury. While the evidence might not he regarded as entirely satisfactory, yet there was sufficient, if the jury believed it, upon which to base a finding that this was a ferocious, dog,, kept by defendant for several year's, with knowledge of his vicious disposition, arid that the attack -on plaintiff '.was not invited; that he was not at fault. Plaintiff entered the stable where the dog’ was confined, at the request of defendant’s stableman in -charge, to hold a lantern, and was immediately attacked by the dog and severely bitten. , - .

We think the plaintiff made out-a case éntitling him to go'to the jury upon all the questions involved,- and the' judgment must, [269]*269therefore, be reversed and a new trial ordered, costs to abide the event.

Woodwabd, Jenks, Hookee and' Gaynoe, JJ., concurred; the latter in separate memorandum. •

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 A.D. 268, 105 N.Y.S. 598, 1907 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1753, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ellingsen-v-linstrand-nyappdiv-1907.