Miranda v. Lo Curto
| Decision Date | 26 October 1928 |
| Citation | 163 N.E. 557,249 N.Y. 191 |
| Parties | MIRANDA v. LO CURTO. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Action by Matilda Miranda against Melchiorri Lo Curto. From a judgment of the Appellate Division (224 App. Div. 653, 228 N. Y. S. 852), unanimously affirming a judgment for plaintiff on a verdict, defendant, by permission, appeals.
Reversed, and new trial ordered.
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second department.
Theodore H. Lord, Fred H. Rees, and Daniel Mungall, all of New York City, for appellant.
Leonard F. Fish and William Seligson, both of New York City, for respondent.
The record before us contains no sufficient evidence from which the jury might find that at the time of the accident the automobile of the defendant was operated by his son as his agent. There is even no proof that this was a family car. Had such proof been present it might be necessary to determine the question of liability under Missell v. Hayes, 86 N. J. Law, 348, 91 A. 322, assuming that that case states the common law of New York as we interpret it. The accident happening in New Jersey, section 282-e of our Highway Law (Consol. Laws, c. 25) has no application.
The judgment of the Trial Term and of the Appellate Division should be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event.
Judgment reversed, etc.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reiling v. Missouri Insurance Co., 19876.
...150 N.W. 620; Alabama G.S.R. Co. v. Carroll, 97 Ala. 126, 11 So. 803; Sharples v. Watson, 157 Miss. 236, 127 So. 779; Miranda v. LoCurto, 249 N.Y. 191, 163 N.E. 557; Cuba Railroad Co. v. Crosby, 222 U.S. 473, 56 L. Ed. 274; Masci v. Young, 109 N.J. Law 453, 162 A. 623; Liebing v. Mutual Lif......
-
White v. Smith
...occur in New York, and expressly overruled cases, such as Cherwein v. Geiter, 272 N.Y. 165, 5 N.E.2d 185 (1936) and Miranda v. LoCurto, 249 N.Y. 191, 163 N.E. 557 (1928) which had denied the extraterritorial application of § 388. "It is clear that in adding the words `in this state' to the ......
-
Reiling v. Missouri Ins. Co.
...150 N.W. 620; Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. Carroll, 97 Ala. 126, 11 So. 803; Sharples v. Watson, 157 Miss. 236, 127 So. 779; Miranda v. LoCurto, 249 N.Y. 191, 163 N.E. 557; Cuba Railroad Co. v. Crosby, 222 U.S. 473, 56 274; Masci v. Young, 109 N.J. Law 453, 162 A. 623; Liebing v. Mutual Life Ins......
-
Farber v. Smolack
...liability arising from permissive use of a vehicle. Decisions such as Cherwien v. Geiter, 272 N.Y. 165, 5 N.E.2d 185 and Miranda v. Lo Curto, 249 N.Y. 191, 163 N.E. 557, which took a more restrictive view, must be deemed to have yielded to the rule of Babcock, as did those cases which took ......