From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McClure v. Pennsylvania Tunnel Terminal R.R

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 1, 1911
145 App. Div. 911 (N.Y. App. Div. 1911)

Summary

In McClure v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, 53 Pa. Super. 638, 651, the ice company employer was clearly not a joint tortfeasor.

Summary of this case from Koller v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co.

Opinion

June, 1911.

Present — Ingraham, P.J., Laughlin, Clarke, Scott and Miller, JJ.


We think, upon the record presented, that a long account is not involved which justifies a reference to hear and determine the action, against the opposition of the defendant. The order appealed from, therefore, should be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion denied, with ten dollars costs.


Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs


Summaries of

McClure v. Pennsylvania Tunnel Terminal R.R

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 1, 1911
145 App. Div. 911 (N.Y. App. Div. 1911)

In McClure v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, 53 Pa. Super. 638, 651, the ice company employer was clearly not a joint tortfeasor.

Summary of this case from Koller v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co.
Case details for

McClure v. Pennsylvania Tunnel Terminal R.R

Case Details

Full title:DAVID McCLURE, Respondent, v . PENNSYLVANIA TUNNEL AND TERMINAL RAILROAD…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Jun 1, 1911

Citations

145 App. Div. 911 (N.Y. App. Div. 1911)

Citing Cases

Rosenfeld et Ux. v. Stauffer

The defendant offered to show that the plaintiffs had executed such release and had been paid the sum of…

Koller v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co.

No agency relationship was proven or alleged. Clearly, Diver was not a party to the accident and in no way…