Cadwell v. . Arnheim
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from a judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered October 19, 1894, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict, and also affirmed an order denying a motion for a new trial. The nature of the action and the facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered October 19, 1894, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict, and also affirmed an order denying a motion for a new trial. The nature of the action and the facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion. The plaintiff failed to prove any negligence on the part of the defendant or of his driver, or any facts which constituted a cause of action against the defendant. (Gottwald v. Bernheimer, 6 Daly, 212; Quinlan v. S. A. R. Co., 4 Daly, 487; Furlong v. B. &…
1Opinion of the CourtGray, J.
The plaintiff brought this action to recover damages from the defendant for injuries sustained by himself and to his horses and carriage, as the result of being run. into by a pair of horses attached to a carriage, belonging to the defendant and driven by his coachman. The charge is that the horses and carriage were negligently driven by the defendant’s servant, at the time. The defendant, in his answer, denied the negligence and set up in defense that the occurrence complained of was due to the horses having become frightened and unmanageable, and was without any fault on the part of…
2Cited by18 opinions
- Laidlaw v. . SageNew York Court of Appeals · 1899
- Rowe v. SuchCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
- Dotson v. Erie RailroadSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1903
- Lynch v. KinethWashington Supreme Court · 1904
- Flanders v. GoodfellowNew York Court of Appeals · 2025
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.