From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williams v. Yellow Taxicab Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 1, 1915
172 App. Div. 894 (N.Y. App. Div. 1915)

Opinion

December, 1915.

Present — Jenks, P.J., Thomas, Stapleton, Mills and Rich, JJ.


Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs. The case was for the jury. The court did not err in its refusal to grant the motion recorded at folios 376, 377, for although plaintiff's witness Buchman at one place of his cross-examination testified that he did not see the defendant's cab until the collision, he added immediately that he both saw and felt it, and that he must have seen it before he felt it. (Fols. 186, 187.) Moreover, his testimony at folios 156, 159, 163, 164, implies that he saw the defendant's cab before the collision.


Summaries of

Williams v. Yellow Taxicab Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 1, 1915
172 App. Div. 894 (N.Y. App. Div. 1915)
Case details for

Williams v. Yellow Taxicab Company

Case Details

Full title:Grace Williams, an Infant, by Michael Williams, Her Guardian ad Litem…

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

Date published: Dec 1, 1915

Citations

172 App. Div. 894 (N.Y. App. Div. 1915)

Citing Cases

Rockenstein v. Rogers

Busch v. L. N. Railroad Co., 17 S.W.2d 337; Stout v. Public Service Co., 17 S.W.2d 363; Falvey v. Hicks, 286…

State ex Rel. Public Service Co. v. Bland

(1) The court erred in permitting counsel for plaintiff to make, in the course of his argument to the jury,…