Hull v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad
113 A.D. 888, 98 N.Y.S. 1104
Opinion
Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All. concurred, except P. and Nash, J., who dissented and voted for reversal on the ground that the testimony of the defendant’s witnesses that the locomotive was subjected to frequent and thorough inspection by competent inspectors is uncontradicted, and that there should have been a dismissal of the complaint upon this ground. (Smith v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 164 N. Y. 491 ; Biddiscomb v. Cameron, 35 App. Div. 561 ; affd., 161 N. Y. 637.)
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Hull v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad, 113 A.D. 888, 98 N.Y.S. 1104 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1906).
113 A.D. 888 (Hull v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Biddiscombe v. . Cameron
57 N.E. 1118 (New York Court of Appeals, 1900)
Smith v. . N.Y.C. H.R.R.R. Co.
58 N.E. 656 (New York Court of Appeals, 1900)
Biddiscomb v. Cameron
35 A.D. 561 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1898)