Lapieduse v. . Syracuse Rapid Transit Railway Company

New York Court of Appeals

Lapieduse v. . Syracuse Rapid Transit Railway Company

80 N.E. 1112, 187 N.Y. 561, 1907 N.Y. LEXIS 884

DecidedFebruary 19, 1907

StatusPublished

This text of 80 N.E. 1112 (Lapieduse v. . Syracuse Rapid Transit Railway Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lapieduse v. . Syracuse Rapid Transit Railway Company, 80 N.E. 1112, 187 N.Y. 561, 1907 N.Y. LEXIS 884 (N.Y. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J.; Edward T. Bartlett, Haight, Hiscock and Chase, JJ., concur on the ground that the alleged errors were so cured by the subsequent charge as to become harmless; Gray and Willard Bartlett, JJ., dissent upon the ground that it was error to leave the case with the jury upon the. instruction that there was a legal presumption that the plaintiff was not mi juris.

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

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J.; Edward T. Bartlett, Haight, Hiscock and Chase, JJ., concur on the ground that the alleged errors were so cured by the subsequent charge as to become harmless; Gray and Willard Bartlett, JJ., dissent upon the ground that it was error to leave the case with the jury upon the. instruction that there was a legal presumption that the plaintiff was not mi juris.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

80 N.E. 1112, 187 N.Y. 561, 1907 N.Y. LEXIS 884, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lapieduse-v-syracuse-rapid-transit-railway-company-ny-1907.