The main question involved was as to the sufficiency of the evidence to uphold the judgment. The Court (Truax, J., writing, Dugro, J., concurring) held the evidence insufficient and reversed the judgment and ordered a new trial, with costs to the appellants to abide the event,'
27 Jones & S. 577 •
59 N.Y. Super. Ct. 577
Daniel Cunningham, Respondent v. The Manhattan Railway Company, et al., Appellants.
Decided March 2, 1891.
Appeal from judgment entered on the findings and decision óf a judge on a trial at special term before the court without a jury.
Davies & Rapallo, for appellants.
Leo C. Dessar, for respondent.
Before Truax and Dugro, JJ.
Cunningham v. Manhattan Railway Co.
27 Jones & S. 577 •
59 N.Y. Super. Ct. 577
Case Details
27 Jones & S. 577
59 N.Y. Super. Ct. 577
References
Nothing yet... Still searching!
Nothing yet... Still searching!