Legal Opinion

De Vau v. Pennsylvania & N. Y. Canal & R. Co.

Superior Court of Buffalo

Decided November 19, 1889PublishedCited by 1 opinion

Motion for new trial upon exceptions.

1Opinion of the Court

Beckwith, C. J., was of opinion that the motion should be denied, but filed no opinion. Motion denied.

Hatch, J.,

(dissenting.) The allegations of the complaint show this to be an action for damages on account of personal injuries, alleged to have been sustained by reason of the negligence of the defendant. The gravamen of the charge is contained in the fourth count of the complaint, viz.: “That in the conduct of its business as such railroad corporation, and in the performance of the work in filling up its road-bed, as above set forth, it was the duty of the defendant to furnish good,…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Hickey v. . TaaffeNew York Court of Appeals · 1887
  2. Sweeney v. . Berlin and Jones Envelope Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1886
  3. Hussey v. . CogerNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
  4. Probst v. . DelamaterNew York Court of Appeals · 1885

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Stein v. LevyNew York Supreme Court · 1890

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

Powered by the Exa API