Legal Opinion

Feiber v. Manhattan Dist. Tel. Co.

New York Court of Common Pleas

Decided April 1, 1889PublishedCited by 1 opinion

Motion for reargument. For former report, see 3 N. Y. Supp. 116.

1Per curiam

The brief of the defendant, used on the first argument of the appeal, disposes of the suggestion that the question of damages was not before the court. Even if the plaintiff were misled by the statement of Justice Steckler, that, in his view, the controlling question in the case was, is or is not the defendant a common carrier? we should not feel called on to reverse the judgment. Notwithstanding the expression of an opinion by the justice, it was in the power of the plaintiff to offer proof of the damages he had sustained, and, if he refrained from offering such proof because he thought that…

2Cited by1 opinion

  1. Roediger v. KraftNew York Supreme Court · 1915

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

Powered by the Exa API