Warn v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad

163 N.Y. 525
New York Court of Appeals·Decided June 22, 1900·Published

Opinion

Werner, J.

This is not a unanimous affirmance. The cases of Harroun v. Brush El. Light Co. (152 N. Y. 212) [527]*527and McDonnell v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co. (159 N. Y. 524) are not in conflict with this decision. In the former case, the record recited four' justices as sitting, and they all concurred; in the latter case, all the justices composing the court heard the argument, but one of them died before it wrs decided. In this case one of the sitting justices did not vote, although he had the right to do so.

The motion should he denied, with ten dollars costs.

Parker, Ch. J., O’Brien, Bartlett, Yann, Landon and Cullen, JJ., concur.

Motion denied.

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

Warn v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad, 163 N.Y. 525 (N.Y. 1900).

163 N.Y. 525 (Warn v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Harroun v. . Brush Electric Light Co.
46 N.E. 291 (New York Court of Appeals, 1897)
McDonnell v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad
53 N.E. 1132 (New York Court of Appeals, 1899)