Case Name: Harcourt Bull, Respondent, v. New York City Railway Company, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1907-10-23
Citations: 121 A.D. 582
Docket Number: 
Parties: Harcourt Bull, Respondent, v. New York City Railway Company, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 121
Pages: 582–585

Head Matter:
Harcourt Bull, Respondent, v. New York City Railway Company, Appellant.
Second Department,
October 23, 1907.
Railroad — refusal of transfer — motive of passenger suing for penalty.
One who becomes a passenger op a street surface ■ railroad for the sole object of finding out whether a transfer will be refused, is not entitled to recover the penalty .for a refusal. . '
Gaynob and Woodward, JJ., dissented, with opinion.
Appeal by the defendant, the New York City Bail way Company, from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, borough of Bichmond, in favor of the plaintiff, rendered on the 17th day of April, 1906.
James J. Quackenbush [Henry F. Gannon with him on the brief], for the appellant.
Harcourt Bull, respondent, in person.

Opinion:
Hooker, J.:
This is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Municipal Court for the penalty for the refusal to issue a transfer. On cross-examination the plaintiff testified that he rode to the transfer point " with the sole object of simply traveling over the line to see what would be done ; " and " Q. If you had received a transfer, you had no business beyond the point at which your transfer was honored ? A. I had obtained the information I was after." It is obvious that the plaintiff was not " aggrieved " as the term is used in the statute.
The judgment should be reversed on the authority of Nicholson v. New York City R. Co. No. 4 (118 App. Div. 858).
Hirschberg, P. J., and Jerks, J., concurred, the latter on the authority of Myers v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co. (10 App. Div. 335); GayNor, J., read for affirmance, with whom Woodward, J., concurred.