McKenna v. Weatherwax

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McKenna v. Weatherwax

245 A.D. 794

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 15, 1935

StatusPublished

This text of 245 A.D. 794 (McKenna v. Weatherwax) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McKenna v. Weatherwax, 245 A.D. 794 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendants from a judgment entered in Rensselaer county upon a verdict of a jury in favor of the plaintiff at a Trial Term of the Supreme Court and from an order denying motion for a new trial. Plaintiff, a passenger on the defendants’ street ear, claimed that it suddenly slid backward down hill, throwing her to the floor. Defendants’ witnesses claimed that she was injured, if at all, as she alighted from the street car and stepped upon the pavement. Defendants claim the verdict is against the weight of evidence, urge a reversal because of prejudicial remarks and conduct of plaintiff and her attorney, and because of errors in rulings upon evidence and in erroneous statements of the law in the charge of the court to which, however, no exception was taken. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Hill, P. J., Rhodes and Crapser, JJ., concur; McNamee and Bliss, JJ., dissent.

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

Appeal by the defendants from a judgment entered in Rensselaer county upon a verdict of a jury in favor of the plaintiff at a Trial Term of the Supreme Court and from an order denying motion for a new trial. Plaintiff, a passenger on the defendants’ street ear, claimed that it suddenly slid backward down hill, throwing her to the floor. Defendants’ witnesses claimed that she was injured, if at all, as she alighted from the street car and stepped upon the pavement. Defendants claim the verdict is against the weight of evidence, urge a reversal because of prejudicial remarks and conduct of plaintiff and her attorney, and because of errors in rulings upon evidence and in erroneous statements of the law in the charge of the court to which, however, no exception was taken. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Hill, P. J., Rhodes and Crapser, JJ., concur; McNamee and Bliss, JJ., dissent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 A.D. 794, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mckenna-v-weatherwax-nyappdiv-1935.