Kearns v. New York & Queens County Railway Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Kearns v. New York & Queens County Railway Co.

86 N.Y.S. 179

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJanuary 25, 1904

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 86 N.Y.S. 179 (Kearns v. New York & Queens County 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

Kearns v. New York & Queens County Railway Co., 86 N.Y.S. 179 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

MacLEAN, J.

According to his complaint and evidence, the plaintiff, having become a passenger upon, one of the defendant’s vehicles by boarding its car and paying the fare, was asked to pay again, and, upon refusal) addressed abusively and thrown from the car with violence by the company’s conductor. The learned justice denied a motion for dismissal because of want of jurisdiction in the court in an action for assault, treating the action as one based upon contract, and for damages to recover for personal injuries growing out of the defendant’s neglect to fulfill its duty of protection of its passengers; rightly following Hart v. Met. St. Ry. Co., 65 App. Div. 493, 72 N. Y. Supp. 797. It was also objected by the defendant that the action was not brought in the district in which either of the parties lived, but that came too late; and, further, that the plaintiff had neglected to file a bill of particulars as directed by the court, but for that the defendant’s attorney had neglected to procure an order. The judgment of the Municipal Court, entered upon the conclusions of the jury, acting, so far as appears, without trace of passion, partiality, or prejudice, must be affirmed, with costs.

Judgment affirmed, with costs to the plaintiff. All concur.

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

MacLEAN, J.

According to his complaint and evidence, the plaintiff, having become a passenger upon, one of the defendant’s vehicles by boarding its car and paying the fare, was asked to pay again, and, upon refusal) addressed abusively and thrown from the car with violence by the company’s conductor. The learned justice denied a motion for dismissal because of want of jurisdiction in the court in an action for assault, treating the action as one based upon contract, and for damages to recover for personal injuries growing out of the defendant’s neglect to fulfill its duty of protection of its passengers; rightly following Hart v. Met. St. Ry. Co., 65 App. Div. 493, 72 N. Y. Supp. 797. It was also objected by the defendant that the action was not brought in the district in which either of the parties lived, but that came too late; and, further, that the plaintiff had neglected to file a bill of particulars as directed by the court, but for that the defendant’s attorney had neglected to procure an order. The judgment of the Municipal Court, entered upon the conclusions of the jury, acting, so far as appears, without trace of passion, partiality, or prejudice, must be affirmed, with costs.

Judgment affirmed, with costs to the plaintiff. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 N.Y.S. 179, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kearns-v-new-york-queens-county-railway-co-nyappterm-1904.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack