Buseman v. McGovern

Judgment and order reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide the event, upon the ground that fairly construed the complaint did not charge omission to oil the derrick as one of the defects. The evidence with regard to such omission was seasonably objected to, and when received failed to establish by a fair preponderance thereof that the breaking of the gooseneck was due to such omission. Burr, Stapleton and Putnam, JJ., concurred; Jenks, P. J., and Carr, J., concurred in the result.