Gross v. Mertz

216 A.D. 726

This text of 216 A.D. 726 (Gross v. Mertz) 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
Gross v. Mertz, 216 A.D. 726 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1926).

Opinion

Judgment reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. In Rolfe v. Hewitt (227 N. Y. 486) the chauffeur had been expressly instructed to permit no one to ride in the car without defendant’s permission; he 'had been directed to do a specific thing, in the doing of which he required no assistance; whereas, in the case at bar, the chauffeur in permitting plaintiffs’ intestate to ride with him to have him point out where the table should be delivered, had no individual or personal purpose of his own, separate from his master’s business and interest, but on the contrary, it must have been that business and interest, a disposition to gain and keep the good will of the defendant’s customers, which prompted the invitation. (Quinn v. Power, 87 N. Y. 535, 539.) Kelly, P. J., Rich, Jaycox, Kapper and Lazansky, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Rolfe v. . Hewitt
125 N.E. 804 (New York Court of Appeals, 1920)
Quinn v. . Power
87 N.Y. 535 (New York Court of Appeals, 1882)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
216 A.D. 726, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gross-v-mertz-nyappdiv-1926.