Shanchan v. New York & New Haven Railroad

New York County Courts

Shanchan v. New York & New Haven Railroad

10 Abb. Pr. 398

DecidedMay 15, 1860

StatusPublished

This text of 10 Abb. Pr. 398 (Shanchan v. New York & New Haven Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York County Courts primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Shanchan v. New York & New Haven Railroad, 10 Abb. Pr. 398 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1860).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court.—Robertson, J.

—This was an action for an injury occasioned to plaintiff’s cow in July, 1858, by the defendants’ engine, while passing over the track of the Hew York and Harlem Railroad Company. The track was unfenced at the place where the" injury occurred. The cow had been accustomed to run at large, and was wrongfully upon the track. The jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiff, and from the judgment entered thereon the defendant appealed.

The defendant was a foreign corporation, and was not bound to fence the track in question. The act of 1850 imposed that duty upon another. That act does not apply to the defendant. The plaintiff could only recover at common law, and as his negligence contributed to the injury, he was not entitled to recover.

Judgment reversed, with costs.

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

By the Court.—Robertson, J.

—This was an action for an injury occasioned to plaintiff’s cow in July, 1858, by the defendants’ engine, while passing over the track of the Hew York and Harlem Railroad Company. The track was unfenced at the place where the" injury occurred. The cow had been accustomed to run at large, and was wrongfully upon the track. The jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiff, and from the judgment entered thereon the defendant appealed.

The defendant was a foreign corporation, and was not bound to fence the track in question. The act of 1850 imposed that duty upon another. That act does not apply to the defendant. The plaintiff could only recover at common law, and as his negligence contributed to the injury, he was not entitled to recover.

Judgment reversed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 Abb. Pr. 398, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shanchan-v-new-york-new-haven-railroad-nycountyct-1860.