Holzer v. Rosenberg
Jeanette A. Holzer, an Infant, by Nathaniel N. Holzer, Her Guardian ad Litem v. Barnett Rosenberg and Another
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Judgment reversed on the law, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. The evidence in the ease did not justify the charge of the court as to the parents’ negligence, and we think the charge upon this subject was prejudicial to the plaintiff. (Lynch v. McNally, 73 N. Y. 347 ; Muller v. McKesson, Id, 195.) There was also error in making ownership of the dog by the defendants a necessary condition of recovery. Keeping or harboring the dog is sufficient. Kelly, P. J., Rich, Jaycox, Manning and Young, JJ., concur.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 2 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
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.