Hyperlawhypertext legal database Geary v. Persian Rug Manufactory 133 N.Y.S. 46

← Cases

Geary v. Persian Rug Manufactory

133 N.Y.S. 46 Court N.Y. App. Div. Decision date 1911-12-29 English

Decision Majority — PER CURIAM. · Dissent — INGRAHAM, P. J.

Contents
p. 46
GEARY v. PERSIAN RUG MANUFACTORY.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
December 29, 1911.)

Headnote

Appeal from Trial Term, New York County.
Action by Mary Geary, an infant, against the Persian Rug Manufactory. From a judgment for plaintiff, and from an order denying defendant’s motion for new trial, it appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before INGRAHAM, P. J., and CNARKE, McNAUGH-LIN, SCOTT, and DOWNING, JJ.
Edward J. Redington, for appellant.
Joseph W. Middlebrook, for respondent.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.

(dissenting). I dissent, upon the ground that the last instruction to the jury on the subject of negligence, charging the plaintiff’s first and second requests, left out the provision of the statute which requires that the person for whose negligence the defendant shall be responsible must be a person in the service of the employer intrusted with and exercising superintendence, whose sole or principal duty is that of superintendence; that this was error, to which the defendant excepted; and for this reason I think there should be a new trial.