Ostrander v. New York City Ry. Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Ostrander v. New York City Ry. Co.

100 N.Y.S. 1133

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedNovember 14, 1906

StatusPublished

This text of 100 N.Y.S. 1133 (Ostrander v. New York City Ry. 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

Ostrander v. New York City Ry. Co., 100 N.Y.S. 1133 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CtJRIAM.

A careful reading of the record discloses no reason why the verdict should have been set aside. There was no motion to dismiss, and no exception to any part of the charge. The learned trial justice seems to have misapprehended the evidence. In his memorandum he states, as illustrating the plaintiff's unreliability as a witness, that she testified that she had never had a doctor before the accident. The minutes show (page 9) that she testified that Dr. Rixe had attended her previous to the accident. In some respects the motorman's evidence is in harmony with plaintiff's evidence, rather than with the conductor's. It does not appear from the order that the verdict was set aside as matter of discretion, and upon the whole case it seems that it should not have been disturbed. The order setting aside the verdict should be reversed, and the judgment reinstated, with costs.

GILDIDRSLEEVE and DOWLING, JJ., concur. DUGRO, J., taking no part.

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

PER CtJRIAM.

A careful reading of the record discloses no reason why the verdict should have been set aside. There was no motion to dismiss, and no exception to any part of the charge. The learned trial justice seems to have misapprehended the evidence. In his memorandum he states, as illustrating the plaintiff's unreliability as a witness, that she testified that she had never had a doctor before the accident. The minutes show (page 9) that she testified that Dr. Rixe had attended her previous to the accident. In some respects the motorman's evidence is in harmony with plaintiff's evidence, rather than with the conductor's. It does not appear from the order that the verdict was set aside as matter of discretion, and upon the whole case it seems that it should not have been disturbed. The order setting aside the verdict should be reversed, and the judgment reinstated, with costs.

GILDIDRSLEEVE and DOWLING, JJ., concur. DUGRO, J., taking no part.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 N.Y.S. 1133, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ostrander-v-new-york-city-ry-co-nyappterm-1906.