Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All. concurred, except P. and Nash, J., who dissented and voted for reversal on the ground that the testimony of the defendant’s witnesses that the locomotive was subjected to frequent and thorough inspection by competent inspectors is uncontradicted, and that there should have been a dismissal of the complaint upon this ground. (Smith v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 164 N. Y. 491 ; Biddiscomb v. Cameron, 35 App. Div. 561 ; affd., 161 N. Y. 637.)
Hull v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad
Related Cases
- Hull v. . New York Elevated Railroad Company
- Hull v. . New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Co.
- Hull v. New York & Harlem Railroad
- New York Central Railroad Company v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company, New York Dock Railway, and New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company, Respondent-Impleaded
- New York Central & Hudson River Railroad v. People