Von Hulse v. Schmiemann

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Von Hulse v. Schmiemann

221 A.D. 768

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 15, 1927

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 221 A.D. 768 (Von Hulse v. Schmiemann) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Von Hulse v. Schmiemann, 221 A.D. 768 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment reversed upon the law, and new trial granted, costs to appellant to abide the event. It was error for the court to charge the jury as requested by plaintiff’s counsel at folios 687 and 688. The question of plaintiff’s contributory negligence was a close one, and the charge that the advanced age of the plaintiff might be considered in fixing what would be reasonable exercise of care on Ms part, was clearly erroneous. Kelly, P. J., Young, Kapper, Lazansky and Hagarty, JJ., concur.

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

Judgment reversed upon the law, and new trial granted, costs to appellant to abide the event. It was error for the court to charge the jury as requested by plaintiff’s counsel at folios 687 and 688. The question of plaintiff’s contributory negligence was a close one, and the charge that the advanced age of the plaintiff might be considered in fixing what would be reasonable exercise of care on Ms part, was clearly erroneous. Kelly, P. J., Young, Kapper, Lazansky and Hagarty, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

221 A.D. 768, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/von-hulse-v-schmiemann-nyappdiv-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack