Torts · MBE-tested
Mabel L. Ferguson, as Administratrix, etc., Respondent, v. Buffalo, Rochester and Pittsburgh Railway Company, Appellant
176 A.D. 897·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·1916·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
Mabel L. Ferguson, as Administratrix, etc., Respondent, v. Buffalo, Rochester and Pittsburgh Railway Company, Appellant.
Practice—failure to try case speedily—negligence.
Appeal from an order entered in the Monroe county clerk’s office on the 22d day of May, 1916.
Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. All concurred, except Foote, J., who dissented, in a memorandum.
[DISSENT — Foote, J. (dissenting):]
Foote, J. (dissenting):
I dissent and voté for reversal of the orders. I think plaintiff’s delay of over six years in bringing the case to trial is not sufficiently excused by her attorney’s uncertainty as to whether her case was controlled by Federal or State laws. Public policy requires a speedy disposal of litigation, and there is no distinction in that respect in favor of actions for negligence. I think our decision in Tuttle v. Dubuque Fire & Marine Ins. Co. (155 App. Div. 802) should be followed here.