Hates v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Hates v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.

84 N.Y.S. 271

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 22, 1903

StatusPublished

This text of 84 N.Y.S. 271 (Hates v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hates v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co., 84 N.Y.S. 271 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Aside from the contention that the verdict in this, an accident case, was against the weight of evidence—a point upon which the judgment will not be reversed, in view of the conflicting material evidence adduced by the respective parties—the appellant rests upon exceptions taken to rulings of the learned court. Three were to the exclusion, upon the plaintiff’s redirect, of questions calling for testimony he had already given; three others were to permit[272]*272ting a witness to explain on his redirect what he had said on his cross; another was to the court’s refusal to charge that the rights of the plaintiff and his truck and the defendant’s car were equal on Second avenue, which, as the collision was on a block between the streets, would have been contrary to settled law (Fleckenstein v. Railroad Co., 105 N. Y. 656, 11 N. E. 951); another, to a negative conclusion of law, applicable only to a situation not shown in the evidence; still another, to using the words “if imprudent” in a paraphrase of the familiar doctrine as to contributory negligence, which had been charged more than once in more customary form; and lastly to referring to a police officer as the “plaintiff’s witness,” which in that form occurs nowhere in the charge but only that “the plaintiff himself put upon the stand a policeman,” and that was fact. Each of the rulings and remarks adverted to was proper.

Judgment affirmed, with costs to the respondent.

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

PER CURIAM.

Aside from the contention that the verdict in this, an accident case, was against the weight of evidence—a point upon which the judgment will not be reversed, in view of the conflicting material evidence adduced by the respective parties—the appellant rests upon exceptions taken to rulings of the learned court. Three were to the exclusion, upon the plaintiff’s redirect, of questions calling for testimony he had already given; three others were to permit[272]*272ting a witness to explain on his redirect what he had said on his cross; another was to the court’s refusal to charge that the rights of the plaintiff and his truck and the defendant’s car were equal on Second avenue, which, as the collision was on a block between the streets, would have been contrary to settled law (Fleckenstein v. Railroad Co., 105 N. Y. 656, 11 N. E. 951); another, to a negative conclusion of law, applicable only to a situation not shown in the evidence; still another, to using the words “if imprudent” in a paraphrase of the familiar doctrine as to contributory negligence, which had been charged more than once in more customary form; and lastly to referring to a police officer as the “plaintiff’s witness,” which in that form occurs nowhere in the charge but only that “the plaintiff himself put upon the stand a policeman,” and that was fact. Each of the rulings and remarks adverted to was proper.

Judgment affirmed, with costs to the respondent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 N.Y.S. 271, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hates-v-metropolitan-street-railway-co-nyappterm-1903.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack