From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Vorce v. Murray

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Mar 1, 1911
143 App. Div. 962 (N.Y. App. Div. 1911)

Opinion

March, 1911.


It is fair to assume from the record that the walk in question was the means of access to Mrs. Murray's house which the plaintiff was visiting. It was also the means of access to other tenements and premises owned by the defendant and apparently she had charge of it. The defendant, therefore, owed a duty to him. The judgment is, therefore, reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. All concurred, except Sewell and Houghton, JJ., dissenting. Judgment reversed and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide event.


Summaries of

Vorce v. Murray

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Mar 1, 1911
143 App. Div. 962 (N.Y. App. Div. 1911)
Case details for

Vorce v. Murray

Case Details

Full title:ORRIN VORCE, Appellant, v . ELEANOR D. MURRAY, Respondent

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

Date published: Mar 1, 1911

Citations

143 App. Div. 962 (N.Y. App. Div. 1911)

Citing Cases

Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique

Further, this seems to me another instance, such as Avlon v. Greencha Holding Corp., 2 Cir., 239 F.2d 616,…