O'Brien v. . N.Y. Cent. and Hud. R.R.R. Co.

80 N.Y. 236, 1880 N.Y. LEXIS 88
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedFebruary 24, 1880
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 80 N.Y. 236 (O'Brien v. . N.Y. Cent. and Hud. R.R.R. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
O'Brien v. . N.Y. Cent. and Hud. R.R.R. Co., 80 N.Y. 236, 1880 N.Y. LEXIS 88 (N.Y. 1880).

Opinion

There was evidence in the case tending to prove that before the plaintiff was put off the train at West Albany, he offered to pay to the conductor the additional four cents which he demanded, and that other passengers offered to pay the amount in his behalf. There was no error in the submission of this question to the jury, and they appear to have found the fact in favor of the plaintiff. If the stoppage at West Albany had been made for the sole purpose of putting the plaintiff off, and he had rendered it necessary by a fractious refusal to pay the extra fare, he would not have been entitled to insist on continuing his trip after having occasioned such an interruption. But West Albany having been one of the regular stopping places of the train, we think that if, before being ejected there, he or others in his behalf offered to pay the full fare, the conductor should have accepted it.

The admission of the testimony as to the circumstances under which the plaintiff got on the train could not have affected the result, for the court expressly charged the jury that the defendant had a right to charge the extra fare, and that was the only point upon which the evidence could have any bearing. The discrepancies and contradictions in the testimony were solely for the consideration of the jury.

The judgment should be affirmed.

All concur.

Judgment affirmed. *Page 239

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

Related

Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Riney
92 S.W. 54 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1906)
Behr v. Erie Railroad
69 A.D. 416 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1902)
Illinois Central Railroad v. Bauer
66 Ill. App. 124 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1896)
Hamel v. Brooklyn & New York Ferry Co.
1 Silv. Sup. 584 (New York Supreme Court, 1889)
Pease v. . D., L. W.R.R. Co.
5 N.E. 37 (New York Court of Appeals, 1886)
Pease v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad
101 N.Y. 367 (New York Court of Appeals, 1886)
Guy v. New York, Ontario & Western Railroad
37 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 399 (New York Supreme Court, 1883)
Hall v. Memphis & Charleston R.
15 F. 57 (W.D. Tennessee, 1882)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
80 N.Y. 236, 1880 N.Y. LEXIS 88, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/obrien-v-ny-cent-and-hud-rrr-co-ny-1880.