Sherman v. Adirondack Railway Co.
40 N.Y.S. 1149
Opinion
We think the special term properly followed the doctrine laid down by the general term in Sherman v. Railway Co., 92 Hun, 39, 36 N. Y. Supp. 692. See Code Civ. Proc. §§ 982—984, 986, 987: Gorman v. Iron Co., 32 Hun, 71; Home v. City of Buffalo, 49 Hun, 76, 1 N. Y. Supp. 801; Thompson v. Heidenrich, 66 How. Prac. 391; McConihe v. Palmer, 76 Hun, 116, 27 N. Y. Supp. 832. We think the orders should be sustained. Each order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Sherman v. Adirondack Railway Co., 40 N.Y.S. 1149 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1896).
40 N.Y.S. 1149 (Sherman v. Adirondack Railway Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Thompson v. Heidenrich
66 How. Pr. 391 (New York Supreme Court, 1883)
Horne v. City of Buffalo
1 N.Y.S. 801 (New York Supreme Court, 1888)
McConihe v. Palmer
27 N.Y.S. 832 (New York Supreme Court, 1894)
Sherman v. Adirondack Railway Co.
36 N.Y.S. 692 (New York Supreme Court, 1895)