
    MOORE v. JOLINE et al.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    May 24, 1910.)
    Street Railroads (§ 112)—Collision with Automobile—Evidence of Negligence.
    Negligence on the part of receivers operating a street railroad cannot be inferred from the mere fact that a street car came into collision with an automobile.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Street Railroads, Cent. Dig. §§ 227, 228; Dec. Dig. § 112.*]
    Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, First District.
    
      Action by Harold J. Moore against Adrian H. Joline and Douglas Robinson, as receivers of the Metropolitan Street Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.
    Reversed and remanded.
    Argued before SEABURY, LEHMAN, and PAGE, JJ.
    Masten & Nichols (Anthony J. Ernest, of counsel), for appellants. Edwin G. Davis, for respondent.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am, Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep'r Indexes
    
   SEABURY, J.

This is an action to recover the value of repairs made to an automobile, which was damaged in a collision with one of the cars of the defendants. The evidence presented does not show any negligence oh the part of the defendants’ servant, and is suggestive of negligence on the part of the plaintiff, who was operating the automobile. Negligence on the part of the defendants cannot be inferred from the mere fact that an accident happened.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellants to abide the event. All concur.  