Court Opinion

ID: 5263014
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-06 18:48:54.169992+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:28:06.543242
License: Public Domain

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Rich and Jaycox, JJ., concur; Putnam, J., concurs on the ground that the question of a nuisance was a matter for the jury, and the verdict was sustained by the effort to cover the spindle with a box before the accident; Kelly, J., dissents on the ground that the facts did not justify the finding that the spindle in question constituted a nuisance (MacRae v. Chelsea Fibre Mills, 145 App. Div. 588), with whom Blaekmar, P. J., concurs.