Hyperlawhypertext legal database Karl v. New York City Ry. Co. 101 N.Y.S. 750

← Cases

Karl v. New York City Ry. Co.

101 N.Y.S. 750 Court N.Y. App. Term Decision date 1906-12-11 English

Contents

Majority

p. 750
KARL v. NEW YORK CITY RY. CO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
December 11, 1906.)

Headnote

Evidence—Sufficiency—Testimony op Party.
Where plaintiff is the only witness in his behalf, but testifies without contradiction to facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and his testimony is clear and not inherently improbable, either in itself or taken in connection with circumstances detailed therein, a court or jury may not disregard it.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 20, Evidence, §§ 2431, 2438.]
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Third District.
Action by Gustave Karl, Jr., against the New York City Railway Company. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed, and new trial ordered.
Argued before GILDERSLEEVE, FITZGERALD, and DAVIS, JJ.
Harcourt Bull, for appellant.
James L. Quackenbush, for respondent.

The case at bar comes directly within the authority of our decision in the case of Lewis v. This Defendant, 50 Misc. Rep. 535 , 99 N. Y. Supp. 462 , where we held that where a plaintiff is the only witness in her own behalf, but testifies without contradiction to facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and her testimony is clear and not inherently improbable, either in itself or taken in connection with circumstances detailed therein, a court or a

p. 751
jury has no right to disregard it, and a judgment for defendant will be reversed.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.