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

New York Court of Appeals·Decided February 19, 1907·Published

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.

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

Pincite

80 N.E. 1112 (Lapieduse v. . Syracuse Rapid Transit Railway Company) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.