Home/New York Court of Appeals/Sanford v. Standard Oil Co. of New York

Sanford v. Standard Oil Co. of New York

24 N.E. 313, 118 N.Y. 571, 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 855, 73 Sickels 571, 1890 N.Y. LEXIS 1004
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedFebruary 25, 1890
StatusPublished
Cited by23 cases

This text of 24 N.E. 313 (Sanford v. Standard Oil Co. of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Sanford v. Standard Oil Co. of New York, 24 N.E. 313, 118 N.Y. 571, 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 855, 73 Sickels 571, 1890 N.Y. LEXIS 1004 (N.Y. 1890).

Opinion

Potter, J.

I entirely agree with the charge of the trial court that they were servants of different masters.. That the man who gave the signal was the servant of the stevedores Dick & Churchill, and that the man who directed the hoisting and lowering was the servant of the defendant, and that, therefore, upon well-settled principles of law, the defendant is liable for the neglect of Gebhard, the man at the drum.

The authorities cited upon the brief of counsel warrant the instruction of the judge to the jury in that regard, and especially the case cited by respondent’s counsel and to be found in Sullivan v. Tioga Railroad Company, 44 Hun, 304, which I consider a clear and able exposition of the law which is to *575 govern the decision of cases of this character. That case was affirmed by the Court of Appeals in 112 N. Y. 643.

The judgment should be affirmed with costs.

All concur.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Porter v. Consolidation Coal Co.
142 A. 483 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1928)
Williams v. New York Telephone Co.
81 Misc. 310 (New York Supreme Court, 1913)
Esposito v. Rock Plaster Co.
141 A.D. 751 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1910)
Cannon v. Fargo
138 A.D. 20 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1910)
Winona Technical Institute v. Stolte
89 N.E. 393 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1909)
Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Rust
120 S.W. 249 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1909)
Standard Oil Co. v. Anderson
212 U.S. 215 (Supreme Court, 1909)
Henry v. Stanley Hod Elevator Co.
129 A.D. 613 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1908)
Stevenson v. The Steamship Boveric
3 Alaska 457 (D. Alaska, 1907)
Thornton v. Hogan
82 A.D. 500 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1903)
Lauro v. Standard Oil Co.
74 A.D. 4 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1902)
De Maio v. Standard Oil Co.
68 A.D. 167 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1902)
Baldwin v. Abraham
57 A.D. 67 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1901)
Mills v. Thomas Elevator Co.
54 A.D. 124 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1900)
Grasso v. The Lisnacrieve
87 F. 570 (E.D. New York, 1898)
Kastl v. Wabash Railroad
72 N.W. 28 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1897)
Kane v. Mitchell Transp. Co.
35 N.Y.S. 581 (New York Supreme Court, 1895)
Krulder v. Woolverton
32 N.Y.S. 742 (Superior Court of New York, 1895)
Krulder v. Woolverton
64 N.Y. St. Rep. 467 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1895)
Reilly v. Atlas Iron Const. Co.
31 N.Y.S. 618 (New York Supreme Court, 1894)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
24 N.E. 313, 118 N.Y. 571, 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 855, 73 Sickels 571, 1890 N.Y. LEXIS 1004, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sanford-v-standard-oil-co-of-new-york-ny-1890.