McSwegan v. Pennsylvania Railroad

13 A.D. 625

This text of 13 A.D. 625 (McSwegan v. Pennsylvania Railroad) 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
McSwegan v. Pennsylvania Railroad, 13 A.D. 625 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1897).

Opinion

Per Curiam:

This case is not changed from its condition when before us on the former appeal (7 App. Div. 301). On this trial, it went to the jury on the question of fact as to who employed the two men to go.to Beverly to repair the engine. It clearly appears the plaintiffs did not. They were not in the service of the plaintiffs, and they were paid for their work by the Beverly company. The judge’s charge was strictly within the lines of the opinion of this court on the former appeal. The first request to charge was properly refused. The judge,' in substance, charged it three times, and was not bound to use the exact words of counsel. The judgment should be affirmed, with caste. Present—Van Brunt, P. X, Williams, Patterson, O’Brien and Ingraham, JJ.

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

Related

McSwegan v. Pennsylvania Railroad
7 A.D. 301 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1896)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
13 A.D. 625, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcswegan-v-pennsylvania-railroad-nyappdiv-1897.