Muth v. Fitzgerald Bros. Brewing Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Muth v. Fitzgerald Bros. Brewing Co.

257 A.D. 897, 12 N.Y.S.2d 489, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8319

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

DecidedMay 24, 1939

StatusPublished

This text of 257 A.D. 897 (Muth v. Fitzgerald Bros. Brewing Co.) 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

Muth v. Fitzgerald Bros. Brewing Co., 257 A.D. 897, 12 N.Y.S.2d 489, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8319 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

The automobile collision happened at the intersection of Consaul road, Schenectady, a paved east and west street, with Elliott avenue, a north and south street. Defendant-appellant’s truck was proceeding westerly on Consaul road, followed by an automobile driven by the defendant DeForge. Appellant’s driver for the purpose of turning into Elliott avenue stopped suddenly, without notice or signal, and DeForge was forced into the east lane of traffic of Consaul road where his automobile struck and overturned plaintiff's automobile. The evidence sustains the verdicts. Judgments and orders unanimously affirmed, with one bill of costs.

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

The automobile collision happened at the intersection of Consaul road, Schenectady, a paved east and west street, with Elliott avenue, a north and south street. Defendant-appellant’s truck was proceeding westerly on Consaul road, followed by an automobile driven by the defendant DeForge. Appellant’s driver for the purpose of turning into Elliott avenue stopped suddenly, without notice or signal, and DeForge was forced into the east lane of traffic of Consaul road where his automobile struck and overturned plaintiff's automobile. The evidence sustains the verdicts. Judgments and orders unanimously affirmed, with one bill of costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 A.D. 897, 12 N.Y.S.2d 489, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8319, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/muth-v-fitzgerald-bros-brewing-co-nyappdiv-1939.