Grabenstein v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Grabenstein v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.

86 N.Y.S. 727

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedFebruary 23, 1904

StatusPublished

This text of 86 N.Y.S. 727 (Grabenstein v. Metropolitan Street 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

Grabenstein v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co., 86 N.Y.S. 727 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

FREEDMAN, P. J.

Except that the plaintiff supplied the defect in his former testimony as to giving a signal of his intention to alight, [728]*728and that he changed his testimony as to the side of the street at which the car stopped before he attempted to alight, the evidence remains practically as it stood before; and the fair preponderance, inclusive of probabilities, is not only still to the effect that the plaintiff alighted from the car before it had come to a stop, but it has been rendered even more marked than it was at the former trial by the changes- in the testimony of the plaintiff, and his contradictory statements in other respects.

The judgment and order should be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

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

FREEDMAN, P. J.

Except that the plaintiff supplied the defect in his former testimony as to giving a signal of his intention to alight, [728]*728and that he changed his testimony as to the side of the street at which the car stopped before he attempted to alight, the evidence remains practically as it stood before; and the fair preponderance, inclusive of probabilities, is not only still to the effect that the plaintiff alighted from the car before it had come to a stop, but it has been rendered even more marked than it was at the former trial by the changes- in the testimony of the plaintiff, and his contradictory statements in other respects.

The judgment and order should be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 N.Y.S. 727, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grabenstein-v-metropolitan-street-railway-co-nyappterm-1904.