Haines v. Milbank
This text of 71 N.E.2d 776 (Haines v. Milbank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinions
Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
Concur: LOUGHRAN, Ch. J., CONWAY, THACHER and FULD, JJ.; DESMOND and DYE, JJ., dissent in the following memorandum: The judgment should be reversed and a new trial granted. Assuming, without deciding, plaintiff was bound, on the trial of this case, to make out a prima facie showing that the glass came from a particular window in the Chanin Building, we think the testimony justified an inference to that effect. Taking no part, LEWIS, J. *Page 814
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
71 N.E.2d 776, 296 N.Y. 812, 1947 N.Y. LEXIS 1591, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haines-v-milbank-ny-1947.