Hannon v. North Jersey Street Railway Co.

47 A. 803, 65 N.J.L. 547, 36 Vroom 547, 1900 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 3
Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided December 29, 1900·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The verdict for the .plaintiff in this cause cannot be supported by the proofs which were offered. They entirely fail to justify the conclusion that the accident to the plaintiff, which is the cause of action in this case, resulted from any want of care on the part of the employes of the defendant company. On the contrary, the testimony makes it appear more probable, at least, that plaintiff’s injury resulted entirely from his own carelessness, in suddenly,, and without warning, turning his horse across the track of the defendant company, directly in front of an approaching car.

The rule to show cause should be made absolute.

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

Hannon v. North Jersey Street Railway Co., 47 A. 803, 65 N.J.L. 547, 36 Vroom 547, 1900 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 3 (N.J. 1900).

47 A. 803 (Hannon v. North Jersey Street Railway Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hackney v. West Jersey & Seashore Railroad
78 A. 747 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1909)
Metropolitan Railway Co. v. Fonville
1907 OK 125 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1907)
Solatinow v. Jersey City, Hoboken & Paterson Street Railway Co.
56 A. 235 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1903)