Orchard Stables v. Interurban Street Railway Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Orchard Stables v. Interurban Street Railway Co.

91 N.Y.S. 330

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedDecember 23, 1904

StatusPublished

This text of 91 N.Y.S. 330 (Orchard Stables 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

Orchard Stables v. Interurban Street Railway Co., 91 N.Y.S. 330 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

MacEEAN, J.

The plaintiff sought recovery for injury to a hearse resulting from collision with a car of the defendant on Sixth avenue between Forty-First and Forty-Second streets. The version of the accident by the motorman of the defendant, strongly supported by the testimony of three disinterested witnesses, unimpeached—differing only and mainly in the number of feet—that the driver of the plaintiff suddenly cut diagonally across the path of the car of the defendant, with the scant allowance of from 10 to 25 feet, so completely negatives the version of the plaintiff, by its driver, who testified varyingly on direct and cross, with slight support from one, and practically no support from the other, disinterested witness, that the plaintiff may not be said to have borne its burden of a preponderance of proof. The verdict of the jury was manifestly against the weight of evidence, and therefore the judgment entered thereon must be reversed, and a new trial ordered.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. All concur.

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

MacEEAN, J.

The plaintiff sought recovery for injury to a hearse resulting from collision with a car of the defendant on Sixth avenue between Forty-First and Forty-Second streets. The version of the accident by the motorman of the defendant, strongly supported by the testimony of three disinterested witnesses, unimpeached—differing only and mainly in the number of feet—that the driver of the plaintiff suddenly cut diagonally across the path of the car of the defendant, with the scant allowance of from 10 to 25 feet, so completely negatives the version of the plaintiff, by its driver, who testified varyingly on direct and cross, with slight support from one, and practically no support from the other, disinterested witness, that the plaintiff may not be said to have borne its burden of a preponderance of proof. The verdict of the jury was manifestly against the weight of evidence, and therefore the judgment entered thereon must be reversed, and a new trial ordered.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 N.Y.S. 330, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/orchard-stables-v-interurban-street-railway-co-nyappterm-1904.