Legal Opinion

Spinner v. . N.Y.C. H.R.R.R. Co.

New York Court of Appeals

Decided October 6, 1876PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] The plaintiff may not maintain his action, unless the statute law of the State is sufficient therefor. Though his beasts escaped from a well fenced field, without any actual carelessness on his part, when they came upon the defendant's track they were trespassers there, and the defendant owed him no duty, save not to willfully or recklessly injure them. (Munger v. Tonawanda R.R. Co., 4 N.Y., 349.)

The statute law has modified that rule to some extent. By it, the…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Corwin v. . the New-York and Erie Railroad Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1855
  2. Munger v. . Tonawanda Railroad Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1850

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Scoggins v. Atlantic & G. P. Cement Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1912
  2. Hildebrand v. Chicago B. & Q. R. R.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1933
  3. Connolly v. Central Vermont RailroadAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1896
  4. Henderson v. C., R. I. & P. R. Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1878
  5. Whaley v. . Erie Railroad Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1905

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API