Case ID: nys_26/html/1116-04.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MURPHY, Appellant, v. HAYS et al., Respondents.
    (Supreme Court, General Term, First Department.
    January 12, 1894.)
    Action by Therese Murphy, as administratrix, etc., against Frank K. Hays and William H. Hays.
    Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and O’BRIEN and PARKER, JJ.
    G. Washbourne Smith, for appellant.
    Charles C. Nadal, (Thomas S. Moore, of counsel,) for respondents.
   PER CURIAM.

While a portion of the opinion of this court on the former appeal (68 Hun, 450, 23 N. Y. Supp. 70) is not applicable on this review, because it discusses the testimony of the engineer, who was not sworn on the retrial, it is in other respects in point. As a re-examination of the case has not led to any change in the position then taken and expressed by the court, further discussion need not be had. The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.