Morgolofski v. Peoples' Bank

Baltimore City Superior Court

Morgolofski v. Peoples' Bank

1 Balt. C. Rep. 168

DecidedApril 8, 1891

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Balt. C. Rep. 168 (Morgolofski v. Peoples' Bank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Baltimore City Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Morgolofski v. Peoples' Bank, 1 Balt. C. Rep. 168 (Md. Super. Ct. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

STEWART, J.

The case of Jacob Morgolofski against the People’s Bank terminated in the Superior Court yesterday by the jury awarding $3,750 to the plaintiff. On the 24th of March, 1890, the plaintiff was injured by the elevator in the bank building, and suit was brought against the bank, claiming $20,-000. The point was made by counsel for the bank that it was a freight elevator, but the Court held that if it was also used for passengers with the knowledge of the defendants, then the defendant was liable. The Court also decided that the door of the elevator being open was evidence of negligence to go to the jury. Hon. Isidor Rayner and Bernard Wiesenfeld were counsel for the plaintiff and Mr. J. Alexander Preston for the defendant. A motion for a new trial was made and will probably be heard on the 18th inst.

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

STEWART, J.

The case of Jacob Morgolofski against the People’s Bank terminated in the Superior Court yesterday by the jury awarding $3,750 to the plaintiff. On the 24th of March, 1890, the plaintiff was injured by the elevator in the bank building, and suit was brought against the bank, claiming $20,-000. The point was made by counsel for the bank that it was a freight elevator, but the Court held that if it was also used for passengers with the knowledge of the defendants, then the defendant was liable. The Court also decided that the door of the elevator being open was evidence of negligence to go to the jury. Hon. Isidor Rayner and Bernard Wiesenfeld were counsel for the plaintiff and Mr. J. Alexander Preston for the defendant. A motion for a new trial was made and will probably be heard on the 18th inst.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Balt. C. Rep. 168, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morgolofski-v-peoples-bank-mdsuperctbalt-1891.