Self v. International Railway Co.

224 A.D. 238, 230 N.Y.S. 34, 1928 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9970
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 29, 1928
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 224 A.D. 238 (Self v. International Railway 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
Self v. International Railway Co., 224 A.D. 238, 230 N.Y.S. 34, 1928 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9970 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1928).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In December, 1923, Ethel Black, while riding as a passenger in an automobile driven by this plaintiff, was killed in a collision between the automobile and one of defendant’s street cars. The administratrix of her estate sued this plaintiff and defendant jointly and severally for damages. The jury verdict was in favor of the administratrix against the International Railway Company and in favor of this plaintiff (then a defendant) of no cause of action. In the instant case the City Court of Buffalo permitted plaintiff to introduce into evidence the judgment roll in the prior action, and considered the question of damages only. The Supreme Court, at Special Term, affirmed the judgment for plaintiff, resulting in this appeal.

As between this plaintiff and defendant there never was any privity. The principle of respondeat superior was not involved, as in Pangburn v. Buick Motor Co. (211 N. Y. 228). These parties were simply defendants in the prior action, with entirely separate interests, There was no issue between them, The railway com[239]*239pany could not control nor direct the plaintiff administratrix in presenting her case.

Much may be found in the books bearing upon the subject of res adjudícala. Extended reference to such authorities is unnecessary in the determination of this appeal. The former judgment was not admissible in evidence because this defendant was not obligated on the former trial to establish its contentions in court as against this plaintiff; nor did it have the opportunity to do so. (Erie R. R. Co. v. Buffalo & Lackawanna Traction Co., 220 App. Div. 520; affd., 246 N. Y. 625.)

The judgment should be reversed on the law and a new trial granted in the City Court of Buffalo, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

All concur. Present — Httbbs, P. J., Sears, Crouch, Taylor and Sawyer, JJ.

In each case: Judgment reversed on the law and a new trial granted in the City Court of Buffalo, with costs in all courts to the appellant to abide the event.

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

Related

Marcomo Stevedoring Corp. v. Nathanson
202 Misc. 154 (New York Supreme Court, 1951)
Stivali v. Space
75 A.2d 289 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1950)
Boyne v. Samac Motors, Inc.
22 Misc. 2d 686 (New York Supreme Court, 1949)
Israel v. Krupa
180 Misc. 995 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1943)
Pearlman v. Truppo
159 A. 623 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1932)
Neenan v. Woodside Astoria Transportation Co.
235 A.D. 9 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1932)
Boice v. Pallette
140 Misc. 763 (New York Supreme Court, 1931)
Pullam v. Greater Eagle Wet Wash-Laundry Co.
137 Misc. 103 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1930)
Trotter v. Klein
140 Misc. 78 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1930)
Duignan v. Pawlikowski
134 Misc. 22 (New York Supreme Court, 1929)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
224 A.D. 238, 230 N.Y.S. 34, 1928 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9970, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/self-v-international-railway-co-nyappdiv-1928.