# Quinn v. Power

> New York Supreme Court · January 15, 1879 · 24 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 102

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6123374

## Case

- **Full name:** MICHAEL QUINN as Administrator, Etc., of JOHN FAHEY v. GEORGE H. POWER
- **Court:** New York Supreme Court
- **Decided:** January 15, 1879
- **Citations:** 24 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 102
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Boardman
- **Judges:** Boardman, Bockes, Learned
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6123374

## Opinion text

Boardman, J. :
I concur in the result of this opinion. If, as a matter of law, the defendant was not legally exempt from liability, I am inclined to think that under all the evidence given it was a question of fact for the jury to determine whether the defendant’s servants were acting within the scope of their authority and duty. (Rounds v. D., L. and W. R. R. Co., 64 N. Y., 129—137; Jackson v. Second Avenue. R. R. Co., 47 id., 274, 277. If I am correct in this the court erred in deciding as a legal question that the act done *106 was within the scope of the servants’ employment, and in the discharge of their duty to the defendant.
Learned, P. j., dissented.
Judgment reversed, and new trial granted, costs to abide event.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6123374. Public record. Not legal advice.