Romero v. McKernan

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Romero v. McKernan

88 N.Y.S. 365

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMay 19, 1904

StatusPublished

This text of 88 N.Y.S. 365 (Romero v. McKernan) 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

Romero v. McKernan, 88 N.Y.S. 365 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

SCOTT, J.

There is no evidence whatever that the defendant railroad company ever received the plaintiff’s trunk. The evidence is that it was delivered to. the New Jersey Central Railroad. There is nothing upon which to predicate a finding that in receiving the trunk the latter company acted as agent for the Baltimore & Ohio Company. What does appear is that the New Jersey Central Road maintains a baggage office at which the trunk was received, and that it issues tickets to points on the line of the Baltimore & Ohio Road. It appears to be a connecting road. No special contract or partnership is shown between the two railroads under which one is answerable for the default of the other. As the evidence stands, it is the New Jersey Central Road which received plaintiff’s trunk, and which is responsible, if any -one is.

The judgment must be reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to .appellant to abide the event. . All concur.

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

SCOTT, J.

There is no evidence whatever that the defendant railroad company ever received the plaintiff’s trunk. The evidence is that it was delivered to. the New Jersey Central Railroad. There is nothing upon which to predicate a finding that in receiving the trunk the latter company acted as agent for the Baltimore & Ohio Company. What does appear is that the New Jersey Central Road maintains a baggage office at which the trunk was received, and that it issues tickets to points on the line of the Baltimore & Ohio Road. It appears to be a connecting road. No special contract or partnership is shown between the two railroads under which one is answerable for the default of the other. As the evidence stands, it is the New Jersey Central Road which received plaintiff’s trunk, and which is responsible, if any -one is.

The judgment must be reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to .appellant to abide the event. . All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 N.Y.S. 365, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/romero-v-mckernan-nyappterm-1904.