Case Name: Therese Murphy, as Admrx., etc., App'lt, v. Frank K. Hays et al., Resp'ts
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1894
Citations: 56 N.Y. St. Rep. 885
Docket Number: 
Parties: Therese Murphy, as Admrx., etc., App’lt, v. Frank K. Hays et al., Resp’ts.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 56
Pages: 885–885

Head Matter:
Therese Murphy, as Admrx., etc., App’lt, v. Frank K. Hays et al., Resp’ts.
G. Washbourne Smith, for app’lt; Charles C. Nodal (Ihomas S. Moore, of counsel), for resp’ts.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
While a portion of the opinion of this court on the former appeal (68 Hun, 450 ; 52 St. Rep. 749 ;) 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.