Menike v. Manhattan Railway Co.

Superior Court of New York

Menike v. Manhattan Railway Co.

17 N.Y.S. 954, 1892 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 621

CourtThe Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo

DecidedJanuary 11, 1892

StatusPublished

This text of 17 N.Y.S. 954 (Menike v. Manhattan Railway Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo 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., 17 N.Y.S. 954, 1892 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 621 (superctny 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

Freedman, 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 the 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 order should be affirmed, with costs.

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

Freedman, 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 the 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 order should be affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 N.Y.S. 954, 1892 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 621, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/menike-v-manhattan-railway-co-superctny-1892.