Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Mechanics' Lien.

Materials supplied to contractors
for the construction of rail-
roads, 688.

Personal Injuries.

Physical examination of plaintiff's
person in actions for personal
injuries, 414 n.

Street railways; mechanic's lien Removal of Causes.

upon, 290.

Oaths. See EMINENT DOMAIN.
Passengers.

Lia-

Assaults on passengers by fellow
passengers and strangers.
bility of carrier, 651.
Contributory negligence of pas-
senger in alighting from mov-
ing train, 563.
Contributory negligence of pas-
sengers riding in baggage,
mail, and freight cars, 592.
Damages. Excessive damages
for wrongful expulsion of pas-
senger. What verdicts have
been sustained, and what set
aside, 643.
Exemplary damages for injuries
to passenger, caused by defect-
ive track, 512.

Tortious acts of servants; liabili-
ty of carrier for injury to pas-
sengers through, 648.

Condemnation proceedings. Re-

moval to federal court of pro-
ceedings in state court to con-
demn right of way, 25.
Streets and Highways.

Laying out highway across rail-
road track. Damages to which
company is entitled, 161.
Street Railways.

Mechanic's lien upon street rail-
ways, 290.

Electric railway in streets not an
additional burden giving abut-
ting owners right to compensa-
tion, 64.

Sunday.

Interstate commerce; state Sun-
day laws as a regulation of, 16.
Tickets and Fares.

"Round trip tickets." Detach-
ment of wrong coupon by con-
ductor, 470.

GENERAL INDEX.

NOTE.-The mode of citing the American and English Railroad Cases is as
follows:

47 Am. & Eng. R. Cas.

This index contains references to both the decisions and the notes.

ABANDONMENT.

Condemnation proceedings; aban-
donment of. See EMINENT Do-
MAIN, Procedure.

ACCOUNTING. See EQUITY.
ACT OF GOD.

Landslide in a cut, caused by or-
dinary fall of rain, is not an
"act of God." Gleeson v. Vir-
ginia M. R. Co. (U. S.), 513.
What constitutes an "act of God,"
520 n.

ACTIONS.

Action for damages against rail-
road companies not bona fide.
Entrapping company into ex-
cuse for bringing suit, 471 n.
ADVERSE POSSESSION.

Consolidated company acquired
title by adverse possession to
right of way of one of original
companies whose existence was
limited to fifty years. Miner v.

New York C. & H. R. R. Co.
(N. Y.), 212.
Ejectment against railroad. Ad-

verse possession under color of
title. Defective condemnation
proceedings. Cogsbill v. Mo-
bile & G. R. Co. (Ala.), 211 n.
AGENTS. See OFFICERS; SERVICE
OF PROCESS.

APPEAL. See EMINENT DOMAIN.
ASSAULT. See PASSENGERS.
ASSIGNMENT.

Contract for use of tracks. As-
signment of right under con-
tract. Chicago, R. I. & P. R.
Co. v. Denver & R G. R. Co.
(C. C.), 358 n.
ATTORNEYS.

Argument of counsel. See TRIAL.

BAGGAGE.

See SLEEPING CARS.
Baggage is confined to articles
for personal use of passenger
on journey, and not articles car-
ried for business purposes.
Oakes v. Northern P. R. Co.
(Or.), 437.

what constitutes baggage,
444 n.

Carrier accepting property as bag-
gage, becomes responsible for
it as such, 444 n.

is insurer of baggage, same
as freight. Oakes v. Northern
P. R. Co. (Or.), 437.

is liable for safe delivery of
ordinary baggage, and payment
of fare includes compensation
for carrying it. Oakes v. North-
ern P. R. Co. (Or.), 437.
Fire; destruction of baggage by,
while in warehouse. Neglect
of servants to rescue goods.
Galveston, H. & S. A. R. Co. v.
Smith (Tex.), 445 n.

Injury to baggage. Breaking
open trunk. Evidence as to
condition of trunk after it had
reached plaintiff's home. Davis
v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co.
(Iowa), 444 n.

Limitation of liability for bag-
gage ineffectual by statute. Pre-
sumption as to law in another
state. Davis v. Chicago, R. I.
& P. R. Co. (Iowa), 444 n.
Stage. property or theatrical para-
phernalia; carrier permitting
passenger to take as baggage,
is liable for it as such. Oakes
v. Northern P. R. Co. (Or.),
437.

BAGGAGE-Continued.

Valise left in car by passenger.
Theft of contents. Liability of
company.
Bonner v. DeMen-

dose (Tex.), 444 n.
Warehouse. Liability of carrier
for baggage which passenger
has failed to remove. Galves-

ton, H. & S. A. R. Co. v. Smith
(Tex.), 444 n.

BRANCH ROADS.

Authority of railroad companies

to construct branch roads, 36 n.
Branch from a branch. Branch
roads may have in part a com-
mon stem leading from the
main line. Wheeling B. & T.
R. Co. v. Camden C. O. Co.
(W. Va.), 27.

Partial construction of road. Com-
pany may use and operate any
part of main line and branches
when completed, the same as
though the whole road was fully
completed. Wheeling B. & T.
R. Co. v. Camden C. O. Co.
(W. Va.), 27.
Power to construct. Company
organized under general law
may build branch roads not ex-
ceeding 50 miles long. Wheel-
ing, B. & T. R. Co. v. Camden
C. O. Co. (W. Va.), 27.

BRIDGE.

[blocks in formation]

'CHARTER-Continued.

afterwards asked for and ob-
tained. Farnsworth v. Lime
Rock R. Co. (Me.), 64.
Amendment of charter is a legis-
lative waiver of any forfeiture
incurred by failure to construct
road and commence business.
Farnsworth v. Lime Rock R.
Co. (Me.), 64.
Consequential damages; consti-
tutional provision making rail-
roads liable for. Previous
charter contract. Exemption
from future general legislation.
Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Miller
(U. S.), 154 n.
CHILDREN. See PARENT AND CHILD.
Children as passengers. See
PASSENGERS.

CHURCH.

Condemnation of church property.
See EMINENT DOMAIN.

Conveyance of right of way over
church land. See CONVEYANCE.
CITIZENSHIP. See CORPORATION;
REMOVAL OF CAUSES.
COLLISION. See PASSENGERS.
COMMISSIONERS. See EMINENT
DOMAIN, Procedure.
COMPETING LINES. See CON-

TRACTS; CONSOLIDATION; LEASE,
COMPROMISE.

Contract; compromise is, and to
be valid must be perfect in itself.
Lampkins. Vicksburg, S. & P.
R. Co. (La.), 622.

Law suit which is to be prevented
or ended should be especially
mentioned in transaction.
Lampkins v. Vicksburg, S. &
P. R. Co. (La.), 622.
CONDEMNATION.
DOMAIN.
CONSOLIDATION.

See EMINENT

Competing lines; acquisition by
railroad company of. Construc-
tion of Mo. statute.
Kimball v.
Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. (C.
C.), 369 n.

operation and control of, by
another competing line made
illegal by statute. Manchester
& L. R. Co. v. Concord R. Co.
(N. H.), 359.
Illegality of contract of consolida-
tion held no defense to a bill for
an accounting. Manchester &
L. R. Co. v. Concord R. Co. (N.
H.), 359.

Removal of cause against consoli-

CONSOLIDATION-Continued.

dated corporation composed of
two companies from different
states. Paul v. Baltimore, O.
& C. R. Co. (C. C.), 372 n.
Right of way acquired by one of
original companies held not to
revert to landowner at expira-
tion of such company's charter
period. Miner v. New York C.
& H. R. R. Co. (N. Y.), 212.

ac-

· Consolidated company
quired title to right of way of
one of constituent companies by
right of adverse possession.
Miner v. New York C. & H. R.
R. Co. (N. Y.), 212.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

Charter contracts. See CHARTER.
Jury trial in eminent domain pro-
ceedings. See EMINENT Do-
MAIN, Procedure.

Eminent Domain. Public use.
See EMINENT DOMAIN.
Regulation of rates. See TICKETS
AND FARES.

Sunday trains; statute forbidding.
See SUNDAY.

Statute making railroads subject|

to lien, held not unconstitutional
on account of title and subject
of act. Kansas City & O. R.
Co. v. Frey (Neb.), 295 n.
Title of act authorizing incorpo-
ration of union depot companies
held sufficient to authorize con-
ferring right of eminent do-
main. Fort St. U. D. Co. v.
Morton (Mich.), 41.

statute authorizing union
depot company to run local
trains, held warranted by pro-
vision in title. Fort St. U. D.
Co. v. Morton (Mich.), 41.
CONSTRUCTION. See CONTRACT.
Contract to construct railroad in
which officers of company are
interested. Fraud, 339 n.
Director of company owning ma-
jority of stock, cannot contract
for construction of road. Alle-
mong v. Simmons (Ind.), 400.
Partial construction of road.

As

[blocks in formation]

CONSTRUCTION—Continued.

does not apply to road in pro-
cess of construction. Macon &
A. R. Co. v. Macon & D. R. Co.
(Ga.), 315.

Trespass on adjoining land. See
TRESPASS.

CONTRACT. See FRAUD.

Competing railroads; contracts
between, not necessarily void
as against public policy. Ille-
gality depends upon circum-
stances. Manchester & L. R.
Co. v. Concord R. Co. (N. H.),
359.
Construction contracts. Finality
and effect of engineer's esti-
mates, 304 N.

Monthly payments on certifi-
cate of engineer. Engineer's
action in making certificate held
to be a "determination" under
contract. Chicago, S. F. & C.
R. Co. v. Price, (U. S.), 298.

Contract for construction by
director. Corporation held not
estopped to deny validity. Al-
lemong v. Simmons (Ind.), 400.
Construction of railroad; contract
for, by stockholders owning
nearly all the stock. Donoghue
7. Indiana & L. M. R. Co.
(Mich.), 307 n.

Deficiency in net earnings; con-
tract to make up. See SPECIFIC
PERFORMANCE.

Directors; contract of corporation
with. Lease of road. See
LEASE.

Director of company owning ma-
jority of stock, cannot contract
for construction of road. Alle-
mong v. Simmons (Ind.), 400.
Filling trestle. Contractor not
entitled to recover for space oc-
cupied by culvert. East Tenn.,
V. & G. R. Co. ບ. Matthews
(Ga.), 307 n.

Furnishing ties. Acceptance of
check and receipt of bill by con-
tractor as per statement. Pro-
test against inspection on which
account was based. Robinson
V. Detroit, L. & N. R. Co.
(Mich.), 306.

Admissions of plaintiff as to
payment of ties. Estoppel. In-
struction held to invade prov-
ince of jury. Graffin v. Charles-
ton, C. & C. R. Co. (S. Car.),
304.

CONTRACT-Continued.

Furnishing ties. Company ac-
cepting ties afterwards alleged
to be defective. Jury may as-
sume that ties accepted came,
up to contract. Burden of.
proof. Graffin v. Charleston,
C. & C. R. Co. (S. Car.), 304.
Grant of right of way. Agree-
ment to restore highway. See
CONVEYANCE.

Illegality of executed contract be-
tween competing lines held no
defense to a bill for an account-
ing. Manchester & L. R. Co.
v. Concord R. Co. (N. H.), 359.
Lease of trackage rights. Execu-

tion of contract. See LEASE.
Parol claim by contractors to as-
sume debts of company. Evi-
dence to establish contract.
Lookout Mountain R. Co. v.
Houston (C. C.), 373 n.
Railroad company may let out
to contractor work of replacing
bridge. Bibb's Adm'r v. Nor-
folk & W. R. Co. (Va.), 651.
Restoration of highway in consid-
eration of grant of right of way.
Damages for failure of company
to keep agreement heid not ex-
cessive. Post. v. West Shore &
B. R. Co. (N. Y.), 322.
Right of way, contract for. See
RIGHT OF WAY.

[blocks in formation]

CONTRACTORS—Continued.
Independent contractor. Con-
struction of railroad. Connec-
tion of company with injury
caused by excavations Ala-
bama M. R. Co. v. Coskry
(Ala.), 315 n.

Creation of nuisance; rail-
road company not liable, al-
though its superintendent di-
rected the placing of a soil pipe.
Atlanta & F. R. Co. v. Kim-
berly (Ga.), 307.

employe of, working on
bridge held not to be servant of
railroad company. Contractor
alone liable for his injury.
Bibb's Adm'r v. Norfolk & W.
R. Co. (Va.), 652.

liability of railroad compa-
nies for torts of, 315 m.

Nuisance created by, consist-
ing of pond and accumulation
of filth. Company not liable
for. Atlanta & F. R. Co.
Kimberly (Ga.), 307.

Railroad company not lia-
ble for negligence of foreman
of, in signaling train to cross
unsafe bridge, causing injury
to contractor's workman. Bibb's
Adm'r v. Norfolk & W. R. Co.
(Va.), 651.

Who are, 686 n.
Material men and laborers must
be paid in money, no matter
what was contract between con-
tractor and principal. Farmers'
L. & T. Co. v. Canada & St. L.
R. Co. (Ind.), 271.

Parol claim by contractors to as-
sume debts of company. Evi-
dence to establish contract.
Lookout Mountain R. Co. v.
Houston (C. C.), 373 n.
Sub-contractor must accept pay-
ment as provided in contract.
If tender of proper article is not
made him he may sue for mon-
ey. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v.
Canada & St. L. R. Co. (Ind.),
271.

who is, within meaning of
mechanic's lien law. Farmers'
L. & T. Co. v. Canada & St. L.
R. Co. (Ind.), 271.
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE.
See PASSENGERS.

GENCE

Pleading. Where petition states
facts showing that plaintiff was
negligent, the question of con-

« AnteriorContinuar »