O'Donohue v. Reuth

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

O'Donohue v. Reuth

33 Misc. 760, 67 N.Y.S. 848

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedDecember 15, 1900

StatusPublished

This text of 33 Misc. 760 (O'Donohue v. Reuth) 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

O'Donohue v. Reuth, 33 Misc. 760, 67 N.Y.S. 848 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The action is to recover damages for personal injuries and injury to property sustained by plaintiff through the negligence of a driver employed by the defendants. The plaintiff, on the 5th day of May, 1900, was riding a bicycle through the “ Circle ” in the city of Hew York, as that part of Fifty-ninth street which intersects Seventh and Eighth avenues has become universally known, and was proceeding northward when he was run into by a truck driven by an employee of the defendants and which was moving in an opposite direction. There was a conflict of evidence as to who was responsible for the accident and as to whether plaintiff contributed thereto. The justice resolved the conflict in favor of the plaintiff, and we see no reason for disturbing his decision upon the facts.

The record does not disclose a single exception taken by the defendants to adverse rulings of the trial justice.

We conclude that the judgment was right and should be affirmed, with costs.

Present: Beekman, P. J., Giegerioh and O’Goriian, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

Per Curiam.

The action is to recover damages for personal injuries and injury to property sustained by plaintiff through the negligence of a driver employed by the defendants. The plaintiff, on the 5th day of May, 1900, was riding a bicycle through the “ Circle ” in the city of Hew York, as that part of Fifty-ninth street which intersects Seventh and Eighth avenues has become universally known, and was proceeding northward when he was run into by a truck driven by an employee of the defendants and which was moving in an opposite direction. There was a conflict of evidence as to who was responsible for the accident and as to whether plaintiff contributed thereto. The justice resolved the conflict in favor of the plaintiff, and we see no reason for disturbing his decision upon the facts.

The record does not disclose a single exception taken by the defendants to adverse rulings of the trial justice.

We conclude that the judgment was right and should be affirmed, with costs.

Present: Beekman, P. J., Giegerioh and O’Goriian, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 Misc. 760, 67 N.Y.S. 848, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/odonohue-v-reuth-nyappterm-1900.