Claim of Libertucci v. New York Central Railroad Co.

Hasbrouck, J. (concurring).

Interpreting the finding of use of the engine in interstate commerce as equivalent to a finding that the engine was engaged in interstate commerce, I vote for affirmance. Hill, J., dissents and votes for reversal on the ground that the presumption which exists by reason of section 21 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law, controls, as claimant was engaged in preliminary work on the engine and a later contingency, the arrival of the parcel post package, would determine whether the. train would be engaged in interstate or loca' commerce (Carey v. N. Y. C. R. R. Co., 250…