Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Silas G. Morgan et al., Respondents, v. Lemuel Crocker et al., Appellants, 1875 — 62 N.Y. 626 · caselaw · US
Torts · MBE-tested
Silas G. Morgan et al., Respondents, v. Lemuel Crocker et al., Appellants
62 N.Y. 626·New York Court of Appeals·1875·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
Silas G. Morgan et al., Respondents, v. Lemuel Crocker et al., Appellants.
(Argued May 28, 1876 ;
decided June 8, 1875.)
This action was brought originally against defendant’s testator for the loss of twenty-two cows, alleged to have been occasioned by his negligence as bailee.
The deceased was the proprietor of cattle yards in Buffalo, near the railroad, and the cows were delivered to him to be kept until shipped. The evidence .showed that he put them in a yard ordinarily used and suitable and proper for ' the purpose. The yard was lower than some of the others, and, in case of a flood, liable to be overflowed, but it did not appear that it had ever before been overflowed to a sufficient depth to endanger cattle therein. A storm of unprecedented violence arose suddenly during the night, the water of the lake overflowed the yard, and the cows were drowned. Held, that there was not sufficient evidence of negligence to justify the submission of the question to the jury, and that plaintiffs should have been nonsuited.
H. O. Chesebro for the appellants.
E. G. Lapham for the respondents.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam]
Per Curiam
opinion for reversal and new trial.
All concur.
Judgment reversed.