Smith v. New York City Ry. Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Smith v. New York City Ry. Co.

90 N.Y.S. 1061

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedDecember 7, 1904

StatusPublished

This text of 90 N.Y.S. 1061 (Smith v. New York City Ry. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Smith v. New York City Ry. Co., 90 N.Y.S. 1061 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

BISCHOFF, J.

The contention that the court erred in denying the defendant’s formal motion, at the close of the plaintiff’s case, to strike out the physician’s testimony as not connected with the accident, is not well founded. The plaintiff’s testimony sufficiently identifies the injury with that found by the physician two days after the accident, and, if the defendant claimed this lapse of time sufficient to raise a doubt, the point should have been suggested at the trial, in order that the plaintiff might give further testimony, if necessary, to exclude the inference that she had again been injured, in the same way, during the interval. This, the only ground of appeal presented, being without merit, the judgment is affirmed, with costs. All concur.

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

BISCHOFF, J.

The contention that the court erred in denying the defendant’s formal motion, at the close of the plaintiff’s case, to strike out the physician’s testimony as not connected with the accident, is not well founded. The plaintiff’s testimony sufficiently identifies the injury with that found by the physician two days after the accident, and, if the defendant claimed this lapse of time sufficient to raise a doubt, the point should have been suggested at the trial, in order that the plaintiff might give further testimony, if necessary, to exclude the inference that she had again been injured, in the same way, during the interval. This, the only ground of appeal presented, being without merit, the judgment is affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 N.Y.S. 1061, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-new-york-city-ry-co-nyappterm-1904.