Menike v. Manhattan Railway Co.

The Superior Court of New York City

Menike v. Manhattan Railway Co.

28 Jones & S. 116, 42 N.Y. St. Rep. 957

CourtThe Superior Court of New York City

DecidedJanuary 11, 1892

StatusPublished

This text of 28 Jones & S. 116 (Menike v. Manhattan Railway Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of New York City primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Menike v. Manhattan Railway Co., 28 Jones & S. 116, 42 N.Y. St. Rep. 957 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court.—Freedman, P. J.

This action was brought to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff through the negligence of defendant’s servants in attempting to get on board of one of [117]*117the trains of defendant’s railway. Upon the trial the defendant produced no evidence and the case was submitted to the jury upon the testimony given by and on behalf of the plaintiff. Upon such testimony the case was clearly one for the jury. A dismissal of the complaint would have been error. All the questions as to which the trial judge was requested to charge, were submitted to the jury under a charge which fully guarded every right the defendant had. The jury were expressly instructed that they might render a verdict for the defendant although the testimony of the plaintiff was uncontradicted. Upon the whole case no exception appears of sufficient merit to call for reversal.

The judgment and ordér should be affirmed, with costs.

McAdam and Gildersleeve, JJ., concurred.

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

By the Court.—Freedman, P. J.

This action was brought to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff through the negligence of defendant’s servants in attempting to get on board of one of [117]*117the trains of defendant’s railway. Upon the trial the defendant produced no evidence and the case was submitted to the jury upon the testimony given by and on behalf of the plaintiff. Upon such testimony the case was clearly one for the jury. A dismissal of the complaint would have been error. All the questions as to which the trial judge was requested to charge, were submitted to the jury under a charge which fully guarded every right the defendant had. The jury were expressly instructed that they might render a verdict for the defendant although the testimony of the plaintiff was uncontradicted. Upon the whole case no exception appears of sufficient merit to call for reversal.

The judgment and ordér should be affirmed, with costs.

McAdam and Gildersleeve, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 Jones & S. 116, 42 N.Y. St. Rep. 957, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/menike-v-manhattan-railway-co-nysuperctnyc-1892.