Van Ostrand v. Wallkill Val. R.

New York Supreme Court

Van Ostrand v. Wallkill Val. R.

19 N.Y.S. 621, 46 N.Y. St. Rep. 456

DecidedJuly 2, 1892

StatusPublished

This text of 19 N.Y.S. 621 (Van Ostrand v. Wallkill Val. R.) 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

Van Ostrand v. Wallkill Val. R., 19 N.Y.S. 621, 46 N.Y. St. Rep. 456 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

Herrick, J.

The issue in this case, as submitted to the jury, turned upon the question of the negligence of the defendant in cutting and leaving by the roadside a quantity of grass and brush exposed to the danger of fire from its passing engines. Whether that was negligence or not was a question for the jury. The only cause of action submitted to the jury was the fire of July 6th, caused by the dry grass and brush before referred to taking fire, and such fire spreading to the plaintiff’s premises. That cause of action was fairly presented to the jury. Many of the exceptions were taken in regard to evidence relating to the fire of July 16th, upon which the plaintiff was nonsuited. The other evidence in the case, to which exceptions were taken, does not seem to me to have prejudiced the defendant.

The judgment should be affirmed. All concur.

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

Herrick, J.

The issue in this case, as submitted to the jury, turned upon the question of the negligence of the defendant in cutting and leaving by the roadside a quantity of grass and brush exposed to the danger of fire from its passing engines. Whether that was negligence or not was a question for the jury. The only cause of action submitted to the jury was the fire of July 6th, caused by the dry grass and brush before referred to taking fire, and such fire spreading to the plaintiff’s premises. That cause of action was fairly presented to the jury. Many of the exceptions were taken in regard to evidence relating to the fire of July 16th, upon which the plaintiff was nonsuited. The other evidence in the case, to which exceptions were taken, does not seem to me to have prejudiced the defendant.

The judgment should be affirmed. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 N.Y.S. 621, 46 N.Y. St. Rep. 456, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/van-ostrand-v-wallkill-val-r-nysupct-1892.