Rook v. New Jersey & Pennsylvania Concentrating Works

New York Supreme Court

Rook v. New Jersey & Pennsylvania Concentrating Works

27 N.Y.S. 623, 83 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 54, 59 N.Y. St. Rep. 610

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 12, 1894

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 27 N.Y.S. 623 (Rook v. New Jersey & Pennsylvania Concentrating Works) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rook v. New Jersey & Pennsylvania Concentrating Works, 27 N.Y.S. 623, 83 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 54, 59 N.Y. St. Rep. 610 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

PEATT, J.

We think the circuit judge ruled correctly on all points, and that no error of law was committed. The point made by defendant that the building was being erected by an independent contractor, and that he only should be held responsible, cannot be available upon the facts shown. The plaintiff was not in the service of the contractor, but of defendant. The contractor, being short of laborers, “borrowed” from defendant a gang of men, among whom was the plaintiff. Under the orders of defendant’s foreman, he was put into a dangerous place, where he received his injuries. Upon the facts, he could recover against the contractor, and also against the defendant. His action was therefore well brought, and the verdict must stand. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

PEATT, J.

We think the circuit judge ruled correctly on all points, and that no error of law was committed. The point made by defendant that the building was being erected by an independent contractor, and that he only should be held responsible, cannot be available upon the facts shown. The plaintiff was not in the service of the contractor, but of defendant. The contractor, being short of laborers, “borrowed” from defendant a gang of men, among whom was the plaintiff. Under the orders of defendant’s foreman, he was put into a dangerous place, where he received his injuries. Upon the facts, he could recover against the contractor, and also against the defendant. His action was therefore well brought, and the verdict must stand. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 N.Y.S. 623, 83 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 54, 59 N.Y. St. Rep. 610, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rook-v-new-jersey-pennsylvania-concentrating-works-nysupct-1894.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack