In Seaman, the plaintiff, a conductor of an open streetcar, was standing on the narrow platform running along the length of the car.
Summary of this case from Demogenes v. Village Carting Co.Submitted October 15, 1890
Decided October 31, 1890
H.J. Kingsbury for appellant.
Charles J. Patterson for respondent.
VANN J., reads for affirmance.
All concur, except BRADLEY, J., not voting and BROWN, J., not sitting.
Judgment affirmed.
In Seaman, the plaintiff, a conductor of an open streetcar, was standing on the narrow platform running along the length of the car.
Summary of this case from Demogenes v. Village Carting Co.In Seaman v. Koehler (122 N.Y. 646) the defendant was the member of a firm of brewers known as H. Koehler Co., in business at Twenty-ninth street and First avenue in the city of New York. The inscription on the truck by which the plaintiff was injured was "H. Koehler Co., Twenty-ninth street and First Avenue."
Summary of this case from Isenman v. Miles Co.In Seaman v. Koehler (supra) the court says: "The claim of surprise was not put in at the trial, and it was too late to file it afterwards."
Summary of this case from Weaver v. ScriptureFull title:SELAH D. SEAMAN, Respondent, v . BERTHA KOEHLER, as Executrix, etc.…
Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Date published: Oct 31, 1890
The rule is well settled that when one is surprised by some irregularity or something which has happened…
United States v. American Motor Boat K-1231It is true that false labels may be placed on liquor transported into the country, but the labels furnished…