Hill v. Shafty
New York Supreme Court
Motion by defendant under rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice to dismiss the complaint upon the ground that it appears on the face thereof that said complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
1Opinion of the CourtEdgcomb, J.
Plaintiff, an Onondaga Indian, brings this action in her individual name to recover damages which she claims to have sustained by reason of the wrongful death of her husband, Martin Hill, also an Indian, which she alleges was caused by the negligence of the defendant.
Defendant moves, pursuant to the provisions of rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice, to dismiss the complaint upon the ground that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The particular defect complained of is that the action is brought by the wife in her individual rather than her representative…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Stuber v. . McEnteeNew York Court of Appeals · 1894
- Dole v. IrishNew York Supreme Court · 1848
- George v. PierceNew York Supreme Court · 1914
- Peters v. TallchiefAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1907
3Cited by4 opinions
- Sapone v. New York Central & Hudson River RailroadNew York Supreme Court · 1927
- People ex rel. Charles v. BlackchiefDistrict Court, W.D. New York · 1934
- Shenandoah v. City of PhiladelphiaDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1976
- Crouse v. New York State RailwaysNew York Supreme Court · 1925