Hunt v. Brooklyn Heights Railroad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hunt v. Brooklyn Heights Railroad

115 A.D. 673, 101 N.Y.S. 209, 1906 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3041

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 28, 1906

StatusPublished

This text of 115 A.D. 673 (Hunt v. Brooklyn Heights Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hunt v. Brooklyn Heights Railroad, 115 A.D. 673, 101 N.Y.S. 209, 1906 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3041 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

Hooker, J.:

The plaintiff having been refused a transfer brought this action claiming to recover a penalty of fifty dollars provided-by section 104; of the Railroad Law (Laws of 1890, chap. 565, § 105, as renumbered and amd. by Laws of 1892, chap. 676), was defeated, and appeals. He. left his office on the day he met the refusal intending to go to his home, and being invited by a friend, took a car and visiting with his friend, rode beyond the" point where he would have transferred by the usual route to reach his home, and kept on riding a way from his ultimate destination. Having finished his visit, he sought to reach his home by transferring' "from line to line, but was finally refused- a transfer, and now accounts himself aggrieved by what he alleges was defendant’s violation of the provisions of section 104 of the Railroad Law. By thát section the street railway company is required to. “ carry * *" * between any two points * * * any passenger desiring to .make one continuous trip between such points for one single fare.” [674]*674The plaintiff’s trip was not continuous as the term is used in the - section. He was making two trips, the first to last as long as his visit with his friend was incomplete, the second to reach home from the point where his visit ended. ' .'

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Hirschberg, P. J., Jenks, Gaynor and Miller, JJ., concurred.

Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs.'

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

Hooker, J.:

The plaintiff having been refused a transfer brought this action claiming to recover a penalty of fifty dollars provided-by section 104; of the Railroad Law (Laws of 1890, chap. 565, § 105, as renumbered and amd. by Laws of 1892, chap. 676), was defeated, and appeals. He. left his office on the day he met the refusal intending to go to his home, and being invited by a friend, took a car and visiting with his friend, rode beyond the" point where he would have transferred by the usual route to reach his home, and kept on riding a way from his ultimate destination. Having finished his visit, he sought to reach his home by transferring' "from line to line, but was finally refused- a transfer, and now accounts himself aggrieved by what he alleges was defendant’s violation of the provisions of section 104 of the Railroad Law. By thát section the street railway company is required to. “ carry * *" * between any two points * * * any passenger desiring to .make one continuous trip between such points for one single fare.” [674]*674The plaintiff’s trip was not continuous as the term is used in the - section. He was making two trips, the first to last as long as his visit with his friend was incomplete, the second to reach home from the point where his visit ended. ' .'

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Hirschberg, P. J., Jenks, Gaynor and Miller, JJ., concurred.

Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs.'

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 A.D. 673, 101 N.Y.S. 209, 1906 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3041, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hunt-v-brooklyn-heights-railroad-nyappdiv-1906.