Fischer v. New York City Railway Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Fischer v. New York City Railway Co.

54 Misc. 267, 104 N.Y.S. 400

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMay 15, 1907

StatusPublished

This text of 54 Misc. 267 (Fischer v. New York City 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

Fischer v. New York City Railway Co., 54 Misc. 267, 104 N.Y.S. 400 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff in this action recovered a judgment against the defendant for a penalty for failure to give a transfer while the plaintiff was a passenger on one of its cars. The plaintiff boarded a north bound car at Chambers street and Broadway. He rode until he reached Twenty-third street. The ear there turning into Lexington avenue, he for the first time asked the conductor for a transfer, which was refused. He then left the car and boarded a Twenty-third street car, paying another fare. The reasonableness of the rule promulgated by the defendant requiring a passenger to ask for a transfer at the time he pays a fare has been upheld by the Appellate Division in the case of Ketchum v. New York City R. Co., 118 App. Div. 248. The judgment must, therefore, be reversed.

Present: Gildersleeve, Seabury, and Brady, JJ.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.

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

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff in this action recovered a judgment against the defendant for a penalty for failure to give a transfer while the plaintiff was a passenger on one of its cars. The plaintiff boarded a north bound car at Chambers street and Broadway. He rode until he reached Twenty-third street. The ear there turning into Lexington avenue, he for the first time asked the conductor for a transfer, which was refused. He then left the car and boarded a Twenty-third street car, paying another fare. The reasonableness of the rule promulgated by the defendant requiring a passenger to ask for a transfer at the time he pays a fare has been upheld by the Appellate Division in the case of Ketchum v. New York City R. Co., 118 App. Div. 248. The judgment must, therefore, be reversed.

Present: Gildersleeve, Seabury, and Brady, JJ.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 Misc. 267, 104 N.Y.S. 400, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fischer-v-new-york-city-railway-co-nyappterm-1907.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack