Van Inwegen v. Port Jervis, Monticello & New York Railroad
Charac J. Van Inwegen, Respondent, v. Port Jervis, Monticello and New York Railroad Company, Appellant. (Actions 1 and 2.)
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Werner, J.
This case cannot be distinguished from Hoffman v. King ( 160 N. Y. 618 ). In that case, as in this, it appeared that there were intervening owners between the lands of the plaintiff and the defendant. There being no dispute as to this essential fact, the question whether the fire, which was started upon the premises of the defendant, was the proximate cause of the injury to the plaintiff’s lands is a question of law for the court and not a question of fact for the jury. This question was in this case submitted to the jury, after the denial of defendant’s motions to dismiss at the end of plaintiff’s case and at the close of the whole case. The question was further raised by appropriate requests to charge preferred by defendant’s counsel. Under the circumstances there is nothing to do but to follow the decision in Hoffma/n v. King (sitpra), upon the authority of which the judgments herein are reversed and new trials granted, with costs to abide the event.
Parker, Ch. J., Gray, O’Brien, Haight and Landon, JJ., concur; Cullen, J., not sitting.
Judgments reversed, etc.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 4 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.