Remington v. Shults Bread Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Remington v. Shults Bread Co.

165 A.D. 933

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 15, 1914

StatusPublished

This text of 165 A.D. 933 (Remington v. Shults Bread Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Remington v. Shults Bread Co., 165 A.D. 933 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

No opinion. Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Carr and Rich, JJ., concurred; Burr, J., dissented upon the ground that, in view of plaintiff’s bill of particulars, which states that the wagon which injured plaintiff was marked “Droste Bakery Wagon No. 2,” the charge of the trial justice to the effect that if plaintiff was injured by any wagon of the defendant on the evening in question, even if it was not wagon No. 2, plaintiff was entitled to recover, was erroneous.

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

No opinion. Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Carr and Rich, JJ., concurred; Burr, J., dissented upon the ground that, in view of plaintiff’s bill of particulars, which states that the wagon which injured plaintiff was marked “Droste Bakery Wagon No. 2,” the charge of the trial justice to the effect that if plaintiff was injured by any wagon of the defendant on the evening in question, even if it was not wagon No. 2, plaintiff was entitled to recover, was erroneous.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

165 A.D. 933, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/remington-v-shults-bread-co-nyappdiv-1914.