Hall v. New York Telephone Co.

242 A.D. 880

Opinion

— Judgment affirmed, with costs.. Rhodes, McNamee and Bliss, JJ., concur; Hill, P. J., and Heffeman, J., dissent. (Tremblay v. Harmony Mills, 171 N. Y. 598; Crounse v. Sager, 224 App. Div. 10; Hughes v. Borden’s Farm Products Co., Inc., 252 N. Y. 532; Keegan v. Hohorst, 261 id. 566.)

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

Hall v. New York Telephone Co., 242 A.D. 880 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1934).

242 A.D. 880 (Hall v. New York Telephone Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Tremblay v. . Harmony Mills
64 N.E. 501 (New York Court of Appeals, 1902)
Hughes v. Borden's Farm Products Company, Inc.
170 N.E. 132 (New York Court of Appeals, 1929)
Crounse v. Sager
224 A.D. 10 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1928)