Emery v. McCombs

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Emery v. McCombs

180 A.D. 225, 167 N.Y.S. 474, 1917 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8098

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

DecidedNovember 16, 1917

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 180 A.D. 225 (Emery v. McCombs) 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

Emery v. McCombs, 180 A.D. 225, 167 N.Y.S. 474, 1917 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8098 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Jenks, P. J.:

The action is for negligence in the driving by defendant Connell of a motor car owned by defendant McCombs. Connell was the keeper of a garage, and McCombs theretofore had put the car in the possession of Connell, either as a prospective buyer of the car, or of a factor or sales agent. At the time of the casualty Connell was driving the car for demonstration. There was no relation of.master and servant or any other relation shown that justified the imputation of Connell’s negligence to McCombs. The defendant Connell did not appeal from the judgment. As to the defendant McCombs, the majority of my associates vote to dismiss the complaint, but Mr. Justice Putnam and I vote for a new trial.

The judgment and order should be reversed and-the complaint dismissed, with costs, as to defendant McCombs.

Thomas, Mills and Blackmar, JJ., concurred; Putnam, J., concurred for reversal; Jenks, P. J., and Putnam, J., voted for a new trial.

Judgment and order reversed and complaint dismissed, with costs, as to the defendant McCombs.

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

Jenks, P. J.:

The action is for negligence in the driving by defendant Connell of a motor car owned by defendant McCombs. Connell was the keeper of a garage, and McCombs theretofore had put the car in the possession of Connell, either as a prospective buyer of the car, or of a factor or sales agent. At the time of the casualty Connell was driving the car for demonstration. There was no relation of.master and servant or any other relation shown that justified the imputation of Connell’s negligence to McCombs. The defendant Connell did not appeal from the judgment. As to the defendant McCombs, the majority of my associates vote to dismiss the complaint, but Mr. Justice Putnam and I vote for a new trial.

The judgment and order should be reversed and-the complaint dismissed, with costs, as to defendant McCombs.

Thomas, Mills and Blackmar, JJ., concurred; Putnam, J., concurred for reversal; Jenks, P. J., and Putnam, J., voted for a new trial.

Judgment and order reversed and complaint dismissed, with costs, as to the defendant McCombs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 A.D. 225, 167 N.Y.S. 474, 1917 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8098, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/emery-v-mccombs-nyappdiv-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack