Stooks v. Foote

Full title: John H. Stooks, Appellant, v. John B. Foote, Respondent

Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Jul 1, 1897

20 App. Div. 622 (N.Y. App. Div. 1897)

Opinion

July Term, 1897.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.

HARDIN, P.J.:

I think the plaintiff failed to give evidence sufficient to require the court to submit the question of the defendant's alleged negligence to the jury, and that the nonsuit was properly granted, and the order denying the motion for a new trial on a case and exceptions was proper. ( Frier v. D. H.C. Co., 86 Hun, 465; Miller v. N.Y.C. H.R.R.R. Co., 92 id. 282; Brown v. B., R. P.R.R. Co., 4 App. Div. 465.) The doctrine laid down in Ryan v. N.Y.C.R.R. Co ( 35 N.Y. 210) has been limited and qualified. ( Webb v. R., W. O.R.R. Co., 49 N.Y. 427; Cornish v. Farm Buildings Fire Ins. Co., 74 id. 295; Lowery v. Manhattan Railway Co., 99 id. 166; Flinn v. N.Y.C. H.R.R.R. Co., 142 id. 11; Frace v. N.Y., L.E. W.R.R. Co., 143 id. 182.) I think the judgment and order should be affirmed, with costs. All concurred, except Follett, J., not sitting.