Wright v. New York Central Rail Road
New York Supreme Court
MOTION by the -defendant, for a new trial, upon a case and exceptions. The plaintiff was in the employ of the defendant as a brakeman, and on the night of the 6th of June, 1856, was injured by a collision of the trains, at Pekin, eight and a half miles east of Suspension Bridge, on the road to Bochester.
Read the full summary
MOTION by the -defendant, for a new trial, upon a case and exceptions. The plaintiff was in the employ of the defendant as a brakeman, and on the night of the 6th of June, 1856, was injured by a collision of the trains, at Pekin, eight and a half miles east of Suspension Bridge, on the road to Bochester. It was conceded by the plaintiff, on the trial, that a servant, sustaining injury by reason of the carelessness and negligence of a fellow servant in the same employment could not recover. It was claimed by the plaintiff that the injury in this case was occasioned by the negligence of the…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Marvin, J.
No error was committed in allowing the plaintiff to testify as a witness in his own behalf, though the defendant was a corporation. It is true that the code limits the right of examination to cases in which the adverse party or person in interest is living. It is said that the adverse party or person in interest is, in this case, a corporation, and that life, or living, cannot with propriety, be applied to corporate existence. It may well be that the present -case did not occur to the legislature, when the statute was enacted; but the design was to admit, as a witness,…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Laning v. . N.Y.C.R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1872
- Beeson v. Green Mountain Gold Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1880
- Laning v. New York Central RailroadNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
- Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1875
- Denver, S. P. & P. R. v. DriscollSupreme Court of Colorado · 1889
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.