Uptegrove v. Central R. Co. of New Jersey
35 N.Y.S. 1118, 70 N.Y. St. Rep. 896
Opinion
Both sides, having moved for a direction of a verdict, left the questions of law and fact to the trial justice to determine. We have examined the facts very carefully, and, under Park v. Preston, 108 N. Y. 434, 437, 15 N. E. 705, think the judgment should be affirmed, and it is so ordered, with costs. See Jennings v. Railway Co., 127 N. Y. 449. 28 N. E. 394.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Uptegrove v. Central R. Co. of New Jersey, 35 N.Y.S. 1118, 70 N.Y. St. Rep. 896 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1895).
35 N.Y.S. 1118 (Uptegrove v. Central R. Co. of New Jersey) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Jennings v. Grand Trunk Railway
28 N.E. 394 (New York Court of Appeals, 1891)
Park v. . Preston
15 N.E. 705 (New York Court of Appeals, 1888)