Potter v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. See opinion by Spring, J., on former appeal in same case, reported at 134 Appellate Division, 837. All concurred, except McLennan, P. J., and Robson; J., who dissented upon the ground that the evidence fails to establish any further duty of defendant as to giving signals at the crossing in question than that required at the ordinary farm crossing.