Welk v. . Jackson Architectural Iron Works

76 N.E. 1116, 184 N.Y. 519, 1906 N.Y. LEXIS 1395
New York Court of Appeals·Decided February 6, 1906·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Judgment reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide event, on dissenting opinion of Woodward, J., below.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, O’Brien and Edward T. Bartlett, JJ.; Werner, J., concurs in result on the ground that the structure in cpiestion was a scaffold, but not com-'pleted, and that plaintiff’s participation in the erection thereof precluded his recovery. Dissenting: Hiscock and Chase, JJ.

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

Welk v. . Jackson Architectural Iron Works, 76 N.E. 1116, 184 N.Y. 519, 1906 N.Y. LEXIS 1395 (N.Y. 1906).

76 N.E. 1116 (Welk v. . Jackson Architectural Iron Works) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bohannon v. Joseph T. Ryerson & Son, Inc.
219 N.E.2d 627 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1966)
Frick v. O'Hare-Chicago Corp.
217 N.E.2d 552 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1966)
Broderick v. Cauldwell-Wingate Co.
93 N.E.2d 629 (New York Court of Appeals, 1950)