McGinity v. Mayor

5 Duer 674
The Superior Court of New York City·Decided June 4, 1856·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

Duer, J.,

held, that the plaintiff was bound to show affirmatively, that there had been a neglect of duty Tpy the corporation, and that this was not shown merely by proving that the grate was insufficiently fastened at the time of the accident. There was no [675] reason to believe, from the evidence, that the grate was improperly constructed, or that the defendants had any notice, or were chargeable with knowledge of its defective state. The chain might have been broken by an act of violence, which, for ought that appeared, may have been committed only a short time before the plaintiff was injured. The verdict, therefore, was not sustained by the proof that the plaintiff was bound to give, and must be set aside.

Mew trial granted, upon payment of costs.

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

McGinity v. Mayor, 5 Duer 674 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1856).

5 Duer 674 (McGinity v. Mayor) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Mahogany v. Ward
17 A. 860 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1889)
Hunt v. Mayor of New York
20 Jones & S. 198 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1885)
Parker v. City of Cohoes
17 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 531 (New York Supreme Court, 1877)
City of Lafayette v. Blood
40 Ind. 62 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1872)
Kenyon v. City of Indianapolis
1 Wilson 129 (Indiana Super. Ct., 1872)
Doulon v. City of Clinton
33 Iowa 397 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1871)
Barton v. City of Syracuse
37 Barb. 292 (New York Supreme Court, 1861)
Garrison v. Mayor
5 Bosw. 497 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1859)