Home/Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York/White v. Hudson Navigation Co.

White v. Hudson Navigation Co.

172 A.D. 931, 157 N.Y.S. 59
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 15, 1916
StatusPublished

This text of 172 A.D. 931 (White v. Hudson Navigation Co.) 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
White v. Hudson Navigation Co., 172 A.D. 931, 157 N.Y.S. 59 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1916).

Opinion

Foote, J. (dissenting):

I dissent and vote for reversal. I think defendant’s agents supposed and had the right to suppose that Purdy was the owner of the car. He did not disclose the fact that he was the agent or chauffeur for the owner. I think there is no sufficient evidence to support the verdict to the effect that Purdy in moving the car onto the boat acted as agent of defendant.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
172 A.D. 931, 157 N.Y.S. 59, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/white-v-hudson-navigation-co-nyappdiv-1916.