The question of the defendant’s negligence and the plaintiff’s freedom from negligence were fairly submitted to the *1147jury, and there is sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict; and the judgment and order should be affirmed, with costs.
92 N.Y.S. 1146
SPROESSIG, Respondent, v. INTERURBAN ST. RY. CO., Appellant.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
March 21, 1905.)
Appeal from City Court of New York, Trial Term. Action by Charles H. Sproessig, Jr., against the Interurban Street Railway Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, and from an order denying a motion for new trial on the minutes, defendant appeals. Affirmed. Bayard H. Ames and F. Angelo Gaynor, for appellant. Wager, Acker & Wager, for respondent.
Sproessig v. Interurban Street Railway Co.
92 N.Y.S. 1146
Case Details
92 N.Y.S. 1146
References
Nothing yet... Still searching!
Nothing yet... Still searching!