Burns v. . Matthews
Burns v. . Matthews
42 N.E. 543; 146 N.Y. 386; 1895 N.Y. LEXIS 708
(North Eastern Reporter)
Opinion of the Court
reads for affirmance.
All concur, except Bartlett, J., who dissents on the ground that Pethcal, the foreman, represented the defendant, the master, in such duties as the latter owed deceased for his safety and protection; that there was a conflict of evidence as tó whether the master discharged those duties and the plaintiff was entitled to go to the jury.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.