Case Name: Dora M. Hughs, Respondent, v. Unadilla Valley Railway Company and Others, Appellants; Ernest T. Hughs, Respondent, v. Unadilla Valley Railway Company and Others, Appellants; Emogene Craine, Respondent, v. Unadilla Valley Railway Company and Others, Appellants; Clifton Craine, Respondent, v. Unadilla Valley Railway Company and Others, Appellants
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1932-03
Citations: 235 A.D. 751
Docket Number: 
Parties: Dora M. Hughs, Respondent, v. Unadilla Valley Railway Company and Others, Appellants. Ernest T. Hughs, Respondent, v. Unadilla Valley Railway Company and Others, Appellants. Emogene Craine, Respondent, v. Unadilla Valley Railway Company and Others, Appellants. Clifton Craine, Respondent, v. Unadilla Valley Railway Company and Others, Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 235
Pages: 751–751

Head Matter:
Dora M. Hughs, Respondent, v. Unadilla Valley Railway Company and Others, Appellants. Ernest T. Hughs, Respondent, v. Unadilla Valley Railway Company and Others, Appellants. Emogene Craine, Respondent, v. Unadilla Valley Railway Company and Others, Appellants. Clifton Craine, Respondent, v. Unadilla Valley Railway Company and Others, Appellants.

Opinion:
Judgments affirmed, with costs in one action. (Noakes v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 121 App. Div. 716; affd., 195 N. Y. 543; Nelson v. Nygren, 233 App. Div. 573; Terwilliger v. Long Island R. R. Co., 152 id. 168; affd., 209 N. Y. 522; Hardin v. N. Y. C. R. R. Co., 205 App. Div. 157; Clark v. Traver, Id. 206; Wilhelm v. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co., 215 id. 28, 31.) All concur, except Hinman and Hill, JJ., who dissent and vote for reversal and dismissal of the complaints against all defendants on the ground that plaintiffs were guilty of contributory negligence as matter of law. (Read v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 123 App. Div. 228; 165 id. 910: 219 N. Y. 660; 35 Harvard Law Review, 113, 121.)