McCleary v. Kent
The Superior Court of New York City
This was an action to recover damages for a personal injury sustained by the plaintiff in consequence of the negligence of the defendants in leaving a portion of an area, in front of a building which they had contracted to erect and finish, open and unguarded. The allegations in the complaint were denied by the answer.
Read the full summary
This was an action to recover damages for a personal injury sustained by the plaintiff in consequence of the negligence of the defendants in leaving a portion of an area, in front of a building which they had contracted to erect and finish, open and unguarded. The allegations in the complaint were denied by the answer. The cause, upon the issues raised by the‘pleadings, was tried before the Chief Justice and a jury in May, 1853, and came now before the court upon the following bill of exceptions. Upon the trial of the issue, the counsel for the plaintiff, to maintain the issue on his part,…
1Opinion of the CourtBy the Court. Slosson, J.
It is a mistake to suppose that this case is at all governed by the decision of the Court of Appeals in jBlaJee v. Ferris. Had the action been brought against Mrs. Lozier, the owner, instead of the defendants, the objection that has been relied on, would have applied, and would have been fatal; but the defendants had contracted to finish the whole building, and while engaged in the performance of their contract, had the exclusive possession and control; and that their contract embraced the front area, and the work there necessary to be done, is not denied. Although they employed a blacksmith…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Sulzbacher v. DickieNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1876
- Sulzbacher v. DickieNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1876
- Potter v. SeymourThe Superior Court of New York City · 1859