Ford v. Monroe

20 Wend. 210
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 15, 1838
StatusPublished
Cited by60 cases

This text of 20 Wend. 210 (Ford v. Monroe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ford v. Monroe, 20 Wend. 210 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1838).

Opinion

By the Court, Nelson, Ch. J.

The main ground urged in support of the application for a new trial is, that the proof failed to establish that the servant was acting in the business of the master, or within the scope of his authority. The answer to which is that the point was not made upon the trial, neither in the motion for a non-suit or after the testimony had closed. The cause seems to have been tried and defended upon the assumption of the existence of the relation of master and servant between the defendant and the person driving the carriage. Had the objection been taken, more full proof might have been called out, so as to have placed the question beyond doubt. If the point had been put forth iri due season, as the evidence stands, the judge would have been bound to have submitted it to the jury, and their verdict would have been well warranted. It would therefore be unreasonable to disturb the verdict upon the ground now urged, as the counsel did not choose to avail himself of it when it could have been removed by his adversary by the production of further proof, or met by going to the jury upon that already given.

The damages were specially laid in the declaration, and were clearly proved to have been the direct consequence of the principal act complained of; they therefore came within the well settled rule respecting special damage.

New trial denied.

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

Related

LaFage v. Jani
766 A.2d 1066 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 2001)
Negron v. Llarena
716 A.2d 1158 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1998)
Moreno v. Sterling Drug, Inc.
787 S.W.2d 348 (Texas Supreme Court, 1990)
Neal v. Butler Aviation International, Inc.
422 F. Supp. 850 (E.D. New York, 1976)
Kozar v. Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company
320 F. Supp. 335 (W.D. Michigan, 1970)
City of Milwaukee v. Boynton Cab Co.
229 N.W. 28 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1930)
Mageau v. Great Northern Railway Co.
115 N.W. 651 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1908)
Major v. Burlington, Cedar Rapids & Northern Railway Co.
88 N.W. 815 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1902)
Birkel v. Chandler
66 P. 406 (Washington Supreme Court, 1901)
Daley v. . Brown
60 N.E. 752 (New York Court of Appeals, 1901)
City of Elwood v. Addison
59 N.E. 47 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1901)
May v. West Jersey & Seashore Railroad
42 A. 165 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1898)
Halpin v. . Phenix Ins. Co.
23 N.E. 482 (New York Court of Appeals, 1890)
Cumming v. Brooklyn City R. R.
21 Abb. N. Cas. 1 (New York Court of Appeals, 1888)
Pegram v. Stortz
6 S.E. 485 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1888)
Grosso v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad
13 A. 233 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1888)
The Harrisburg
119 U.S. 199 (Supreme Court, 1886)
Edgar v. Castello
14 S.C. 20 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1880)
Holmes v. O. & C. Ry. Co.
5 F. 75 (D. Oregon, 1880)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
20 Wend. 210, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ford-v-monroe-nysupct-1838.