Poland v. Minshall

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Poland v. Minshall

96 N.Y.S. 200

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedNovember 29, 1905

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 96 N.Y.S. 200 (Poland v. Minshall) 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

Poland v. Minshall, 96 N.Y.S. 200 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1905).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff recovered a judgment for $334.17, damages and costs, for being bitten by defendant’s horse. There was a conflict of proof as to the ownership of the horse and as to the viciousness of the animal being known to defendant. The latter’s daughter, however, admits identity of the defendant as the man shown to be the owner of the hopse. The defendant was not called as a witness at all. It also appears that the horse was frequently kept muzzled, which implies knowledge of his viciousness. _ No contributory negligence on part of plaintiff was proven. The jury were warranted in finding for plaintiff. No claim that damages awarded are excessive.

The defendant also appeals from an order adjourning the trial upon payment of costs to defendant. This was allowable under section 195 of the municipal court act (Laws 1902, p. 1548, c. 580).

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff recovered a judgment for $334.17, damages and costs, for being bitten by defendant’s horse. There was a conflict of proof as to the ownership of the horse and as to the viciousness of the animal being known to defendant. The latter’s daughter, however, admits identity of the defendant as the man shown to be the owner of the hopse. The defendant was not called as a witness at all. It also appears that the horse was frequently kept muzzled, which implies knowledge of his viciousness. _ No contributory negligence on part of plaintiff was proven. The jury were warranted in finding for plaintiff. No claim that damages awarded are excessive.

The defendant also appeals from an order adjourning the trial upon payment of costs to defendant. This was allowable under section 195 of the municipal court act (Laws 1902, p. 1548, c. 580).

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 N.Y.S. 200, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/poland-v-minshall-nyappterm-1905.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack