Legal Opinion · Dissent

Hawthorne v. Eckerson Co.

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided June 3, 1935No. 401Published

1DissentManton, Circuit Judge

Appellee’s proof of ownership, general employment, and customary use established a prima facie case, which means that there was a question of fact for the jury as to operation of the car for the appellant’s business. From such proof the jury was permitted to infer, as its reason might dictate, either that the driver was, or was not, acting within the scope of his employment.

The evidence said to be erroneously admitted may have been a factor which determined the jury’s verdict. In such case, it would be important and may well have been the decisive piece of evidence upon which the verdict was…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Manistee National Bank v. SeymourMichigan Supreme Court · 1887
  2. Colburn v. GrotonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1889
  3. Weiss v. KohlhagenOregon Supreme Court · 1911
  4. Phœnix Assur. Co., Ltd. of London v. DavisCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1933
  5. Michigan Mutual Home Insurance v. Pere Marquette Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1916

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

Powered by the Exa API