From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Murphy v. Milliken

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 1, 1903
88 App. Div. 616 (N.Y. App. Div. 1903)

Opinion

November Term, 1903.


The statement in the opinion that there was no evidence that Finck signaled at all was too broad. But that statement is not necessary to support the conclusion reached. It is enough that there was no definite or satisfactory evidence that Finck signaled prematurely. Motion for reargument denied.


Summaries of

Murphy v. Milliken

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 1, 1903
88 App. Div. 616 (N.Y. App. Div. 1903)
Case details for

Murphy v. Milliken

Case Details

Full title:Patrick Murphy, Respondent, v. Edward F. Milliken and Foster Milliken…

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

Date published: Nov 1, 1903

Citations

88 App. Div. 616 (N.Y. App. Div. 1903)