Littlejohn & Co. v. Ellerman & Bucknall Steamship Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Littlejohn & Co. v. Ellerman & Bucknall Steamship Co.

135 Misc. 237, 236 N.Y.S. 699, 1926 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1128

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided December 15, 1926·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In accordance with the rule laid down in The Rosalia ([C. C. A.] 264 Fed. 285, at p. 288) the evidence raised a presumption of unseaworthiness or of negligence, and, the defendant [238] having failed to sustain the burden of showing affirmatively that the damage arose from an excepted peril, the evidence tending to establish merely a doubt in that regard, it was error to award judgment for defendant.

Judgment reversed, with $30 costs, and judgment directed in favor of plaintiff for $467, with interest and costs.

Present, Bijur, O’Malley and Levy, JJ.

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

Per Curiam.

In accordance with the rule laid down in The Rosalia ([C. C. A.] 264 Fed. 285, at p. 288) the evidence raised a presumption of unseaworthiness or of negligence, and, the defendant [238] having failed to sustain the burden of showing affirmatively that the damage arose from an excepted peril, the evidence tending to establish merely a doubt in that regard, it was error to award judgment for defendant.

Judgment reversed, with $30 costs, and judgment directed in favor of plaintiff for $467, with interest and costs.

Present, Bijur, O’Malley and Levy, JJ.

Littlejohn & Co. v. Ellerman & Bucknall Steamship Co., 135 Misc. 237, 236 N.Y.S. 699, 1926 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1128 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

135 Misc. 237 (Littlejohn & Co. v. Ellerman & Bucknall Steamship Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related