Miller v. New York Central Railroad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Miller v. New York Central Railroad

181 A.D. 956

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

DecidedDecember 15, 1917

StatusPublished

This text of 181 A.D. 956 (Miller v. New York Central 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

Miller v. New York Central Railroad, 181 A.D. 956 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment and orders reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide the event. Defendant was required to use a mail car, constructed in accordance with the specifications prescribed by the Postmaster-General, who was authorized by statute to prescribe. The jury were permitted to exact further requirements for guarding the skylight in the car. This was error, which ran through rulings in the admission of evidence, and also through statements in the charge. A new trial is granted because the jury were not bound to accept the defendant’s only vouchsafed explanation of the cause of the break in the skylight, as it was based wholly upon circumstantial evidence, and it is not conclusively established that the skylight was properly constructed and properly maintained. Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Stapleton, Mills and Rich, JJ., concurred.

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

Judgment and orders reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide the event. Defendant was required to use a mail car, constructed in accordance with the specifications prescribed by the Postmaster-General, who was authorized by statute to prescribe. The jury were permitted to exact further requirements for guarding the skylight in the car. This was error, which ran through rulings in the admission of evidence, and also through statements in the charge. A new trial is granted because the jury were not bound to accept the defendant’s only vouchsafed explanation of the cause of the break in the skylight, as it was based wholly upon circumstantial evidence, and it is not conclusively established that the skylight was properly constructed and properly maintained. Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Stapleton, Mills and Rich, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

181 A.D. 956, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-new-york-central-railroad-nyappdiv-1917.