Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Brown v. Pennsylvania R.

Brown v. Pa. R., 158 F.2d 795 (2d Cir. 1947)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1947-01-08
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. The appellant contends that a verdict should have been directed dn its favor because of a general release executed by the plaintiff in consideration of the payment to him of $170.40. This sum was the amount of wages lost during the period of time he was incapacitated for work by reason of his injuries. He testified that he signed the document without reading it in full, believing it to be a receipt for lost wages because of representations made by the defendant’s claim agent. The latter told a different story.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Brown v. Pennsylvania R.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
6 opinions
BROWN v. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO.,158 F.2d 795(2nd Cir. 1947)
BROWN v. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO.
No. 126, Docket 20414.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
January 8, 1947.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of New York.

Action under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 51 et seq., by Ralph S. Brown against the Pennsylvania Railroad Company. From a judgment for the plaintiff on a verdict of a jury, the defendant appeals.

Affirmed.
Louis J. Carruthers, of New York City (Ralph E. Hemstreet, of Brooklyn, N.Y., of counsel), for appellant.

Morris A. Wainger, of New York City, for appellee.
Before SWAN, AUGUSTUS N. HAND, and CLARK, Circuit Judges.Page 796
PER CURIAM.
The appellant contends that a verdict should have been directed in its favor because of a general release executed by the plaintiff in consideration of the payment to him of $170.40. This sum was the amount of wages lost during the period of time he was incapacitated for work by reason of his injuries. He testified that he signed the document without reading it in full, believing it to be a receipt for lost wages because of representations made by the defendant's claim agent. The latter told a different story. Whether the release was procured by misrepresentation presented an issue involving the credibility of contradictory witnesses which was properly submitted to the jury for decision. See Chesapeake Ohio R. Co. v. Howard,178 U.S. 153, 167, 20 S.Ct. 880, 44 L.Ed. 1015; Southern Ry. Co. v. Clark, 6 Cir., 233 F. 900; Miles v. Lavender, 9 Cir.,10 F.2d 450; Ricketts v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 2 Cir.,153 F.2d 757; Farrington v. Harlem Savings Bank,280 N.Y. 1,19 N.E.2d 657. There was also testimony that the defendant's doctor had not fully informed the plaintiff of the extent of his injuries. See Bonici v. Standard Oil Co., 2 Cir.,103 F.2d 437, 439.

Judgment affirmed.