Shinbaum v. Murphy

New York Court of Appeals

Shinbaum v. Murphy

41 N.E.2d 85, 287 N.Y. 529, 1942 N.Y. LEXIS 1093

DecidedMarch 5, 1942

StatusPublished

This text of 41 N.E.2d 85 (Shinbaum v. Murphy) 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

Shinbaum v. Murphy, 41 N.E.2d 85, 287 N.Y. 529, 1942 N.Y. LEXIS 1093 (N.Y. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

*531 Per Curiam.

We think the courts below erred in declaring as an inference of law that the codefendant Murphy was the servant of the defendant-appellant Cross & Brown Company rather than an independent contractor. Whether the one relation or the other existed between them was a question for the jury. (See Fritz v. Krasne, 273 N. Y. 649; Irwin v. Klein, 271 N. Y. 477; Matter of Glielmi v. Netherland Dairy Co., 254 N. Y. 60.)

The judgments should be reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event.

Loughran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ., concur; Lehman, Ch. J., and Finch, J., taking no part.

Judgments reversed, etc.

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