Styler v. Long Island Railroad

New York Supreme Court

Styler v. Long Island Railroad

27 N.Y.S. 1113, 82 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 547, 58 N.Y. St. Rep. 727, 75 Hun 547

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 12, 1894

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 27 N.Y.S. 1113 (Styler v. Long Island 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

Styler v. Long Island Railroad, 27 N.Y.S. 1113, 82 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 547, 58 N.Y. St. Rep. 727, 75 Hun 547 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

DYKMAN, J.

This is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment entered upon the verdict of a jury, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial upon the minutes of the court. The action is for the recovery of damages resulting from a personal injury to the plaintiff, by reason of the negligence of the defendant. The testimony upon the trial was contradictory; that on the part of the plaintiff making a cause of action for him, and that on the part of the defendant sufficient to exculpate the company. It was therefore a proper case for the jury, and the trial judge submitted the same in a charge which was eminently fair towards the defendant, and the jury rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. We must assume, therefore, that the testimony on the part of the plaintiff commanded the belief of the jury, and in that view the verdict cannot be disturbed. We find no error, and the judgment and order denying the motion for a new trial should be affirmed, with costs.

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

DYKMAN, J.

This is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment entered upon the verdict of a jury, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial upon the minutes of the court. The action is for the recovery of damages resulting from a personal injury to the plaintiff, by reason of the negligence of the defendant. The testimony upon the trial was contradictory; that on the part of the plaintiff making a cause of action for him, and that on the part of the defendant sufficient to exculpate the company. It was therefore a proper case for the jury, and the trial judge submitted the same in a charge which was eminently fair towards the defendant, and the jury rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. We must assume, therefore, that the testimony on the part of the plaintiff commanded the belief of the jury, and in that view the verdict cannot be disturbed. We find no error, and the judgment and order denying the motion for a new trial should be affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 N.Y.S. 1113, 82 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 547, 58 N.Y. St. Rep. 727, 75 Hun 547, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/styler-v-long-island-railroad-nysupct-1894.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack