Haak v. Buffalo, Rochester & Pittsburg Railway Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Haak v. Buffalo, Rochester & Pittsburg Railway Co.

95 N.Y.S. 1131

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 20, 1905·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Judgment and order reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event, upon questions of law only; the facts having been examined and no error found therein.

McLennan, P. j., and NASH, J., vote for reversal on the ground that the evidence fails to show actionable negligence on the part of the defendant. HISCOCK, J., votes for reversal on the ground that it was error to refuse to charge as requested by defendant’s counsel in his last request. SPRING and WILLIAMS, JJ., vote for reversal upon the ground of errors in the charge, and also upon the ground that the verdict is contrary to and against the weight of the evidence.

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

PER CURIAM.

Judgment and order reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event, upon questions of law only; the facts having been examined and no error found therein.

McLennan, P. j., and NASH, J., vote for reversal on the ground that the evidence fails to show actionable negligence on the part of the defendant. HISCOCK, J., votes for reversal on the ground that it was error to refuse to charge as requested by defendant’s counsel in his last request. SPRING and WILLIAMS, JJ., vote for reversal upon the ground of errors in the charge, and also upon the ground that the verdict is contrary to and against the weight of the evidence.

Haak v. Buffalo, Rochester & Pittsburg Railway Co., 95 N.Y.S. 1131 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1905).

Pincite

95 N.Y.S. 1131 (Haak v. Buffalo, Rochester & Pittsburg Railway Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.