Muller v. Interurban Street Railway Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Muller v. Interurban Street Railway Co.

84 N.Y.S. 234

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 22, 1903

StatusPublished

This text of 84 N.Y.S. 234 (Muller v. Interurban Street Railway Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Muller v. Interurban Street Railway Co., 84 N.Y.S. 234 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1903).

Pincite

Opinions

GILDERSLEEVE, J.

The action is for While the plaintiff may have been somewhat confused on cross-examination, still his evidence shows that when his horses got onto the west track of defendant he saw the car a block away on the same track. He was driving slowly. He had his horses over the west track, onto the east track, when he looked again, and saw the car half a block away. Before he could get the hiiid part of his wagon over the west track, the car struck the wagon, and caused the injuries complained of. The evidence was such that the question of the negligence of defendant’s servant in charge of the car and of the plaintiff’s contributory negligence was a proper one for the jury. The charge of the learned justice was a correct statement of the law applicable to the case. We can find no reason for disturbing the judgment.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

FREEDMAN, P..J., concurs.

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

GILDERSLEEVE, J.

The action is for While the plaintiff may have been somewhat confused on cross-examination, still his evidence shows that when his horses got onto the west track of defendant he saw the car a block away on the same track. He was driving slowly. He had his horses over the west track, onto the east track, when he looked again, and saw the car half a block away. Before he could get the hiiid part of his wagon over the west track, the car struck the wagon, and caused the injuries complained of. The evidence was such that the question of the negligence of defendant’s servant in charge of the car and of the plaintiff’s contributory negligence was a proper one for the jury. The charge of the learned justice was a correct statement of the law applicable to the case. We can find no reason for disturbing the judgment.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

FREEDMAN, P..J., concurs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 N.Y.S. 234, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/muller-v-interurban-street-railway-co-nyappterm-1903.