Civil Procedure · MBE-tested
Anna Degnan Kennedy and Others, Respondents, v. The Central Railroad Company of New Jersey, Appellant; Helen Christensen, Respondent, v. The Central Railroad Company of New Jersey, Appellant
236 A.D. 478·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·1932·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Anna Degnan Kennedy and Others, Respondents, v. The Central Railroad Company of New Jersey, Appellant. Helen Christensen, Respondent, v. The Central Railroad Company of New Jersey, Appellant.
First Department,
October 28, 1932.
John J. McElhinny of counsel [Charles E. Miller, attorney], for the appellant.
E. V. Conwell of counsel [Edward T. Harrington, attorney], for the respondents.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
The acts of the police officer in taking plaintiffs to defendant’s station and holding them there under the circumstances set forth in the record permitted the jury to find that he was acting for defendant rather than for the State. Under the New Jersey statute, as interpreted by the courts of that State (Tucker v. Erie R. R. Co., 69 N. J. Law, 19; Taylor v. N. Y. & L. B. R. R. Co., 80 id. 282; Goldberg v. Central R. R. Co. of N. J., 97 id. 374; Dellabello v. Central R. R. Co. of N. J., 99 id. 348), that was made a question of fact for the jury.
The judgments and orders should be affirmed, with costs.
Present — Finch, P. J., Merrell, O’Malley, Sherman and Townley, JJ.
In each case: Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
See N. J. Laws of 1922, chap. 153, p. 267; 1 Cum. Supp. Comp. Stat. N. J. 1911-1924) 240, chap. 29, § 4.— [Rep.