Cannavan v. Conklin
New York Court of Common Pleas
Appeal from the district court. Plaintiff Gerald Cannavan sued the defendants Herman Hesdorf, E. E. Conklin, James Schindler, and Charles Cawley, for damages, for loss of a horse through falling through a pier in the possession of those defendants. On the trial,- the value of the horse, and its loss through the insecure condition of the pier, was shown.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the district court. Plaintiff Gerald Cannavan sued the defendants Herman Hesdorf, E. E. Conklin, James Schindler, and Charles Cawley, for damages, for loss of a horse through falling through a pier in the possession of those defendants. On the trial,- the value of the horse, and its loss through the insecure condition of the pier, was shown. The defendants Conklin and Schindler set up that they had leased the pier to Herman Hesdorf, and no longer had any possession of or liability for the pier. Proof was given, though the proof was conflicting, that defendants Conklin, &c.,…
1Opinion of the CourtCardozo, J.
The case presents only one question worthy of Consideration.
The action in the cause below was to recover for the loss of a horse which was killed on the 24th of Hovember, 1864, -by falling through the pier at the. foot of Forty-third street, on the Forth river.
The death of the horse, its value, and that the loss happened by reason of the negligence of the persons in possession of the pier, in suffering it to be in a dangerous and insecure condition, are sufficiently proven. The question is, whether the appellants occupied that relation to the pier when the accident occurred, as to make them…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Onderdonk v. SmithDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1884
- Brady v. SmithNew York Marine Court · 1878