Matteson v. New York Central Railroad
New York Supreme Court
ACTION brought in-October 1859, to recover damages for an alleged injury to the plaintiff Sarah, on the 7th of July, in that year, caused by the defendant’s cars, in which she was a passenger, running off" the track. The cause was tried in June 1860, when the plaintiffs had a verdict The general term set this aside and ordered a new trial.
Read the full summary
ACTION brought in-October 1859, to recover damages for an alleged injury to the plaintiff Sarah, on the 7th of July, in that year, caused by the defendant’s cars, in which she was a passenger, running off" the track. The cause was tried in June 1860, when the plaintiffs had a verdict The general term set this aside and ordered a new trial. The cause was again tried in June 1860, before Justice Allen and a jury, when a verdict was rendered' in favor of the plaintiffs for $5000 damages. From the judgment on this verdict the defendant appealed. Prior to the commencment of the present suit, an…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Mullin, J.
If section 399 of the Code, as amended in I860, does not make husband and wife competent witnesses, the one for or against the other, the legislature has failed to accomplish what it designed. That it was the intention of the legislature to sweep away this only remaining guard which the court has thrown around the domestic fireside—the guard which made it safe for the' husband to intrust to his wife his most secret thoughts and actions, with the assurance that her lips were forever sealed, and that no power on earth could ever unseal them to his prejudice—that it was…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Barclay v. Richard W. Howell's LesseeSupreme Court of the United States · 1832
- Curtis v. . Rochester and Syracuse Railroad CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1859
- Jefferson Insurance v. H. & D. Cotheal.New York Supreme Court · 1831
- McCormick v. BarnumNew York Supreme Court · 1833
- Caldwell v. . MurphyNew York Court of Appeals · 1854
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Peterson v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1888
- Hallum v. Village of OmroWisconsin Supreme Court · 1904
- McKeigue v. City of JanesvilleWisconsin Supreme Court · 1887
- Quigley v. Central Pacific RailroadNevada Supreme Court · 1876
- Wallace v. Wilmington & N. R.Superior Court of Delaware · 1889
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.