Hyperlawhypertext legal database White v. Hudson Nav. Co. 157 N.Y.S. 59

← Cases

White v. Hudson Nav. Co.

157 N.Y.S. 59 Court N.Y. App. Div. Decision date 1916-01-12 English

Decision Majority — PER CURIAM. · Dissent — FOOTE, J.

Contents
p. 59
WHITE v. HUDSON NAV. CO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
January 12, 1916.)

Headnote

Action by Ernest I. White against the Hudson Navigation Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, and an order denying new trial, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before KRUSE, P. J., and ROBSON, FOOTE, LAMBERT, and MERRELL, JJ.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. AU concur except

I dissent, and vote for reversal. I think defendant’s agents supposed, and had the right to suppose, that Purdy was the owner of the car. He did not disclose the fact that he was the agent or chauffeur for the owner. I think there is no sufficient evidence to support the verdict to the effect that Purdy, in moving the car onto the boat, acted as agent of defendant.