Case ID: nys_31/html/1128-03.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "VAN BRUNT, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HART, Respondent, v. DELAWARE, L. & W. R. CO., Appellant.
    (Supreme Court, General Term, First Department.
    January 18, 1895.)
    Action by Charles E. Hart against the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Company.
    W. Edwards, for appellant.
    John H. Kitchen, for respondent.
   VAN BRUNT, P. J.

Although I adhere to the opinion which I have expressed upon the previous appeals in this case (22 N. Y. Supp. 3; 27 N. Y. Supp. 767), that the evidence failed to disclose any negligence upon the part of the defendant justifying a recovery in this action, my associates having differed from me upon this question, this judgment must die affirmed. There does not seem to be any such ■difference in the presentation of the question of .•negligence upon this appeal as would call for a different ruling from that which obtained upon the previous appeals. The judgment and order appealed from must therefore be affirmed, with costs.