Thistle v. New York City Railway Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Thistle v. New York City Railway Co.

54 Misc. 268, 104 N.Y.S. 401

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMay 15, 1907

StatusPublished

This text of 54 Misc. 268 (Thistle v. New York City Railway 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

Thistle v. New York City Railway Co., 54 Misc. 268, 104 N.Y.S. 401 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

Brady, J.

The plaintiff, according to her own testimony, boarded a Broadway car bound south; paid her fare and asked for a transfer to Canal street. It does not appear from the testimony that she informed the conductor as to what direction on Canal street she desired to go. She received a transfer. She testified that she changed cars at Canal street, boarded a west bound car on that street, offered the transfer to the conductor and that the same was refused by him and that she thereupon paid a second fare. The proof shows that the transfer was good on Canal street cars going in an easterly direction from Broadway. In Gaspar v. New York City R. Co., 51 Misc. Rep. 43, this court held that, inasmuch as the action 'was to recover a penalty based upon a refusal to obey the mandate of a statute, the recovery should be sustained only upon strict proof of the violation thereof, and that, as. the passenger had only asked for a transfer td Amsterdam avenue, without specifying the direction required, and received one which was good on a car going north, she did not establish a refusal, although she desired to make the trip in a southerly direction and the transfer was not accepted on a car going south. The facts in the present case were similar, and the doctrine laid down in the case cited controls.

Gildersleeve and Seabury, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.

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

Brady, J.

The plaintiff, according to her own testimony, boarded a Broadway car bound south; paid her fare and asked for a transfer to Canal street. It does not appear from the testimony that she informed the conductor as to what direction on Canal street she desired to go. She received a transfer. She testified that she changed cars at Canal street, boarded a west bound car on that street, offered the transfer to the conductor and that the same was refused by him and that she thereupon paid a second fare. The proof shows that the transfer was good on Canal street cars going in an easterly direction from Broadway. In Gaspar v. New York City R. Co., 51 Misc. Rep. 43, this court held that, inasmuch as the action 'was to recover a penalty based upon a refusal to obey the mandate of a statute, the recovery should be sustained only upon strict proof of the violation thereof, and that, as. the passenger had only asked for a transfer td Amsterdam avenue, without specifying the direction required, and received one which was good on a car going north, she did not establish a refusal, although she desired to make the trip in a southerly direction and the transfer was not accepted on a car going south. The facts in the present case were similar, and the doctrine laid down in the case cited controls.

Gildersleeve and Seabury, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 Misc. 268, 104 N.Y.S. 401, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thistle-v-new-york-city-railway-co-nyappterm-1907.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack