New York, N. H. & H. R. v. Fruchter
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. Separate actions by David Fruchter, an infant, by Jennie Fruchter, his guardian ad litem, and by Sam Fruchter, against the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff in each action, and defendant brings error. Certiorari granted, 254 U. S.-, 41 Sup.
Read the full summary
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. Separate actions by David Fruchter, an infant, by Jennie Fruchter, his guardian ad litem, and by Sam Fruchter, against the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff in each action, and defendant brings error. Certiorari granted, 254 U. S.-, 41 Sup. Ct. 449, 65 F- Fd. -—. Defendant below (hereinafter called the Railroad Company) maintains a well-known transportation system leading out of New York City, and its lines within the city limits and further are operated by an…
1Opinion of the CourtHough, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). It is too obvious to need comment that the court below treated the claim in suit as covered by what are known as the “attractive nuisance,” “lure,” or “trap” cases.
[1] Since, so far as the courts of the United States are concerned, these cases are all assumed to rest on Railroad Co. v. Stout, 17 Wall. 657, 21 L. Ed. 745, the word “nuisance” is inappropriate. A nuisance is that which “unlawfully worketh hurt, inconvenience, or damage,” and neither the turntable of the Stout Case nor the electric wire here to be considered was a nuisance; both were lawful…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Southern Pacific Company v. JensenSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
- Railroad Co. v. StoutSupreme Court of the United States · 1874
- Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. BaughSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
- Union Pacific Railway Co. v. McDonaldSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Erie Railroad v. HiltSupreme Court of the United States · 1918
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad v. FruchterSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
- Bonniwell v. Milwaukee Light, Heat & Traction Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1921
- Wise v. Southern Indiana Gas & Electric Co.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1941
- Anderson v. PetersCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1938
- Cole v. Pennsylvania R. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1930
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.