Smith v. Grand Street, &c. Railroad

New York Supreme Court

Smith v. Grand Street, &c. Railroad

11 Abb. N. Cas. 62

DecidedFebruary 15, 1882

StatusPublished

This text of 11 Abb. N. Cas. 62 (Smith v. Grand Street, &c. Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Smith v. Grand Street, &c. Railroad, 11 Abb. N. Cas. 62 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1882).

Pincite

Opinion

Cullen, J.

I am still of the opinion expressed on the trial, that the evidence offered was incompetent. The case cited by defendant’s counsel (People v. Bush, 3 Parker, 552), would seem to hold a contrary rule. If so, I think it erroneous, and its authority overruled by subsequent cases (Mailler v. Express Propeller Line, 61 N. Y. 316 ; Warner v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 44 Id. 465).

It is now attempted to justify the admission of such evidence on the question of the mother’s knowledge of the plaintiff’s habits. I did not understand it was offered in that view on the trial. But even in this respect the offer did not go far enough. The defendant offered to show, not that the plaintiff disobeyed the mother’s directions, but that it was allowed to play in the street. I cannot see that this would be material upon the mother’s right to believe that the child would obey her directions.

The amount of the verdict may be larger than the [64]*64court' would have awarded, but it is plainly not so excessive as to justify the interference of the court. Motion for a new trial denied.

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

Cullen, J.

I am still of the opinion expressed on the trial, that the evidence offered was incompetent. The case cited by defendant’s counsel (People v. Bush, 3 Parker, 552), would seem to hold a contrary rule. If so, I think it erroneous, and its authority overruled by subsequent cases (Mailler v. Express Propeller Line, 61 N. Y. 316 ; Warner v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 44 Id. 465).

It is now attempted to justify the admission of such evidence on the question of the mother’s knowledge of the plaintiff’s habits. I did not understand it was offered in that view on the trial. But even in this respect the offer did not go far enough. The defendant offered to show, not that the plaintiff disobeyed the mother’s directions, but that it was allowed to play in the street. I cannot see that this would be material upon the mother’s right to believe that the child would obey her directions.

The amount of the verdict may be larger than the [64]*64court' would have awarded, but it is plainly not so excessive as to justify the interference of the court. Motion for a new trial denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 Abb. N. Cas. 62, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-grand-street-c-railroad-nysupct-1882.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack