Glover v. Manhattan Railway Co.

New York Supreme Court

Glover v. Manhattan Railway Co.

34 N.Y.S. 1139, 94 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 621, 68 N.Y. St. Rep. 871

DecidedJune 14, 1895

StatusPublished

This text of 34 N.Y.S. 1139 (Glover v. Manhattan Railway Co.) 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

Glover v. Manhattan Railway Co., 34 N.Y.S. 1139, 94 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 621, 68 N.Y. St. Rep. 871 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The evidence in this case is entirely unsatisfactory. An examination of the testimony of the expert Mangam leads to the impression that it is utterly unreliable, and should not furnish the basis for any judgment. He seems to be uncertain both in his ideas and his figures; and a perusal of this testimony necessarily produces distrust in either his knowledge or his ingenuousness. This testimony seems to have formed the basis of the judgment, and we think it is wholly unsatisfactory and insufficient. It is true that certain other evidence was given by the plaintiff and her husband. But this evidence seems to be altogether inadequate to sustain the findings of the court below. It appears to have been assumed that the court was to infer damage, and that it was the duty of the defendant to disprove the same. This, however, is not the rule which is to govern the disposition of cases such as the one at bar. The judgment appealed from should be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellants to abide the event.

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

PER CURIAM.

The evidence in this case is entirely unsatisfactory. An examination of the testimony of the expert Mangam leads to the impression that it is utterly unreliable, and should not furnish the basis for any judgment. He seems to be uncertain both in his ideas and his figures; and a perusal of this testimony necessarily produces distrust in either his knowledge or his ingenuousness. This testimony seems to have formed the basis of the judgment, and we think it is wholly unsatisfactory and insufficient. It is true that certain other evidence was given by the plaintiff and her husband. But this evidence seems to be altogether inadequate to sustain the findings of the court below. It appears to have been assumed that the court was to infer damage, and that it was the duty of the defendant to disprove the same. This, however, is not the rule which is to govern the disposition of cases such as the one at bar. The judgment appealed from should be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellants to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 N.Y.S. 1139, 94 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 621, 68 N.Y. St. Rep. 871, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glover-v-manhattan-railway-co-nysupct-1895.