Case Name: MILLER v. KING et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1898-07-23
Citations: 53 N.Y.S. 123
Docket Number: 
Parties: MILLER v. KING et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 53
Pages: 123–125

Head Matter:
MILLER v. KING et al.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
July 23, 1898.)
Carrying Passenger Beyond Destination—Evidence.
In an action by a passenger against a railroad company to recover damages for the latter’s breach of a contract to carry him to a certain station, in that it took him to a station a few miles distant therefrom, the exclusion of the testimony of a livery stable man, engaged in transporting passengers between those stations, as to the amount of the regular charge for such transportation, constitutes error, and requires the reversal of a judgment entered upon a verdict for an amount larger than might have been warranted if the expense of plaintiff’s getting to his destination by carriage had been allowed to be thus shown.
Goodrich, P. J., dissenting.
Appeal from trial term, Orange county.
Action by George Miller against John King and John G. McCullough, as receivers of the New York, Lake Erie & Western Railroad Company. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, and from an order denying a new trial, defendants appeal.
Reversed.
Argued before GOODRICH, P. J., and GULDEN, BARTLETT, HATCH, and WOODWARD, JJ.
Henry Bacon, for appellants.
John W. Lyon, for respondent.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This case has been tried upon the theory approved by the appellate division on the second appeal. Miller v. King, 21 App. Div. 192, 47 N. Y. Supp. 534. Unfortunately, however, an error has been committed in the exclusion of evidence offered by the defendants upon the question of damages, which compels us to reverse the judgment. It will be remembered that the contract of the-defendants was to furnish the plaintiff with railroad transportation from Middletown to Sparrow Bush, whereas they left liim at Port Jervis,—a place some three miles distant from his destination. The defendants called as a witness a livery stable man, resident in Port Jervis, whose business included the conveyance of persons from Port Jervis to Sparrow Bush. This witness was asked what was the regular charge for the transportation of a passenger between these two places, and an objection to the question was sustained by the court, to which ruling an exception was duly taken. The defendants, were thus prevented from giving evidence which was plainly designed to show that the plaintiff could have procured a vehicle to take him from Port Jervis to Sparrow Bush at an expense which was trifling, compared to the amount demanded in his complaint. We think the defendants were entitled to prove this fact. It may be that it would not have reduced the verdict; but, on the other hand, if the jury had been informed that transportation could readily have been obtained at an expense of a few dollars, it may be that the verdict would have been very much less than the amount to which it was reduced by the learned trial judge.
For this error the judgment and order annealed from must be reversed, and a new trial granted; costs to abide the event. All concur, except GOODRICH, P. J., dissenting.