Legal Opinion

Miller v. King

New York Supreme Court

Decided June 14, 1895PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Motion for reargument. For decision on appeal, see 32 N. Y. Supp. 332.

1Opinion of the CourtBrown, P. J.

The motion for a reargument in this case must be granted. The case was tried at the circuit solely upon the theory of a breach of contract. The court ruled that the ejectment of the plaintiff from the train was not unlawful. On appeal this court *426apparently overlooked that ruling, and sustained' the judgment on the ground that “the conductor had no right to eject the plaintiff, and that his act was unlawful.” The plaintiff should not be permitted to sustain his judgment on a different theory than that upon which it was recovered at the trial. Treating the action as one for breach of contract,…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Indianapolis, Bloomington & Western Ry. Co. v. BirneyIllinois Supreme Court · 1874
  2. Francis v. St. Louis Transfer Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1877
  3. Fink v. Albany & Susquehanna RailroadNew York Supreme Court · 1871

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Miller v. KingAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1897
  2. Polhemus v. PolhemusAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1906
  3. Rose v. KingAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1902
  4. Miller v. KingAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1898

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

Powered by the Exa API