History
  • No items yet
midpage
Loughran v. Third Ave. Railroad
34 Misc. 828
City of New York Municipal Cou...
1901
Check Treatment

Lead Opinion

Per Curiam.

The judgment recovered herein is very reasonable in amount and should be affirmed. We think the exceptions taken to the judge’s charge are not of sufficient importance to justify a reversal. We must assume that the jury only allowed plaintiff, in their verdict, for such sums of money actually expended by him. He having failed to show that he paid a substitute while sick, of course the jury made him no allowance on that account. The judge’s charge upon that point simply instructed them to repay him for any sum so expended if he spent any in that way. This was not error, and, we think, in no wise affected the verdict of the jury.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

O’Dwyer, J., concurs.






Dissenting Opinion

Hascall, J.

(dissenting). It seems to me that the verdict has not sufficient support in the evidence.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Case Details

Case Name: Loughran v. Third Ave. Railroad
Court Name: City of New York Municipal Court
Date Published: May 15, 1901
Citation: 34 Misc. 828
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.