Rothschild v. Rio Grande W. Ry. Co.

18 N.Y.S. 548
New York Supreme Court·Decided March 31, 1892·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The opinion of the court below sufficiently states the ground upon which the judgment rendered was founded. The cases of Austin v. Goodrich, 49 N. Y. 266, and Bartlett v. Crozier, 17 Johns. 456, do not seem to have any application. All that is decided in those cases is that in order to maintain the action under the statute the facts must be alleged, bringing the plaintiff within the protection of the statute. In the case at bar the statute is pleaded, and the allegation is made that the provisions of the statute have been complied with. This is an entirely sufficient allegation, as the steps taken in complying with the statute are nothing but the evidence going to support the allegation. The judgment should be affirmed, with costs, and with leave to the defendant to withdraw the demurrer, and answer, upon payment of the costs in the court below and on this appeal.

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

Rothschild v. Rio Grande W. Ry. Co., 18 N.Y.S. 548 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1892).

18 N.Y.S. 548 (Rothschild v. Rio Grande W. Ry. Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Rothschild v. Rio Grande Western Railway Co.
45 N.Y.S. 1147 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1897)
King v. Townshend
29 N.Y.S. 181 (New York Supreme Court, 1894)