Stillwell v. . New York Central Railroad Co.

34 N.Y. 29
New York Court of Appeals·Decided September 5, 1865·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Porter, J.

The questions raised on this appeal were substantially disposed of in the ease of Frances A. Brown, who was injured on the same occasion with the plaintiff. (32 N. Y., 597.) The material facts are identical; and it was held that the evidence raised a question of fact as to the negligence of the plaintiff or the driver, which it was the province of the jury to decide.

The appellant seeks to distinguish this case from the other, on the ground of a declaration, imputed to the plaintiff’s wife. There was no proof of this declaration until after the decision of the motion for a nonsuit. No question was made in regard to it when the judge charged the jury. Her declaration was not evidence against him of the truth of the fact alleged, and the proof was admissible only as affecting the credit of the plaintiff and the driver, who testified that she made no such declaration to the conductor. Whether she made it or not, was a question of fact, depending on conflicting evidence. The conductor and two other employees of the defendant affirmed it, and four witnesses denied it.

The exception to the charge raises the precise question discussed and decided in the case of Brown. (32 N. Y., 603.) The judgment should be affirmed.

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

Stillwell v. . New York Central Railroad Co., 34 N.Y. 29 (N.Y. 1865).

34 N.Y. 29 (Stillwell v. . New York Central Railroad Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Thompson v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad
40 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 16 (New York Supreme Court, 1884)
Ormsbee v. Boston & Providence Railroad
14 R.I. 102 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1883)
Ormsbee v. Boston Prov. R.R. Corp.
14 R.I. 102 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1883)
Wilcox v. Rome, Watertown, & Ogdensburgh Railroad
39 N.Y. 358 (New York Court of Appeals, 1868)