Stillwell v. . New York Central Railroad Co.

New York Court of Appeals

Stillwell v. . New York Central Railroad Co.

34 N.Y. 29

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 5, 1865

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 34 N.Y. 29 (Stillwell v. . New York Central Railroad Co.) 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 N.Y. 29, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stillwell-v-new-york-central-railroad-co-ny-1865.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack